Friday, March 8, 2013

Homeland Security and Military Vehicles - Pictures I Captured while in Kentucky UPDATE 3/4/13 9:32 Am - I am bringing this up to the top, (I originally wrote and published it, in July of 2012) due to the fact it has been disclosed DHS has purchased 2700 of these for the streets of the U.S. The picture I got has #1 on it. So was it the prototype and is being built somewhere in Kentucky? Edit to add 12:45 pm 3/4/13 : check back - I am working on an article from a real source of intelligence given to me this morning regarding these vehicles. It is very explosive and completely bizarre information. I will link the article here, when I am finished with it. Update 7:30 Pm - Here is the article mentioned above: DHS Armored Vehicles (as pictured below) with Russian Troops that had DHS uniforms on being Stopped from coming into Tennessee from Kentucky. __________________________________________________________________________ I was in Kentucky this last week. While driving up there I came across at least 10 different trucks hauling military vehicles going North. I even came across them in the small town of Winchester Kentucky, which is where I took the first picture of a Homeland Security armored vehicle. A friend who was driving up the other way through Bowling Green on Interstate 65 to Louisville said he saw about 20 trucks with military vehicles that same day going North too. I was going up Interstate 75 to Lexington Kentucky. I then went on a small road to Winchester and passed this Homeland Security truck. I waited on the side of the road ahead of it to capture the picture. I was not able to get pictures of all the other military vehicles except for one. I saw many armored vehicles similar to this Homeland Security vehicle on trucks but they did not say Homeland Security on them. Coming back yesterday (Saturday 28th) I saw more going North again. I know there are military bases around but it sure does seem they are moving a lot of vehicles right now and they were all going North. I did not see any going South at all. Anyone else noticing a lot of moving of military vehicles? Anyone seeing these Homeland Security vehicles on trucks around the country? Why were they going through the small town of Winchester Kentucky with it? Edit - Added 5:15 Pm - I was just looking at my pictures closer. I just noticed two things. One there is no license plates on the trucks. Second.... notice how the DHS armored vehicle has a backwards American Flag in front? Why is the flag backwards? Update. ChrisinMaryville, Sent me the answer to my question about the Flag. Why is the flag displayed in reverse on the hood? When the flag is stationary, the constellation is in the place of honor in the upper left corner. However, when the flag is attached to something that moves, the constellation is placed to represent the flag being carried forward, so viewed from the starboard side where the "staff/mast" would be at the front of the vehicle with the constellation in the upper right). It's been this way for a long, long time. At least since immediately prior to WWII. UPDATE 9/6/12 - Rense has an article and pictures of the same DHS type vehicle I have above. They show a police one too.

Homeland Security and Military Vehicles - Pictures I Captured while in Kentucky

UPDATE 3/4/13 9:32 Am - I am bringing this up to the top, (I originally wrote and published it, in July of 2012) due to the fact it has been disclosed DHS has purchased 2700 of these for the streets of the U.S.  The picture I got has #1 on it.  So was it the prototype and is being built somewhere in Kentucky?

Edit to add 12:45 pm 3/4/13 :  check back - I am working on an article from a real source of intelligence given to me this morning regarding these vehicles.   It is very explosive and completely bizarre information.   I will link the article here, when I am finished with it. 

Update 7:30 Pm - Here is the article mentioned above:

DHS Armored Vehicles (as pictured below) with Russian Troops that had DHS uniforms on being Stopped from coming into Tennessee from Kentucky.
__________________________________________________________________________

I was in Kentucky this last week.  While driving up there I came across at least 10 different trucks hauling military vehicles going North.  I even came across them in the small town of Winchester Kentucky, which is where I took the first picture of a Homeland Security armored vehicle.

 A friend who was driving up the other way through Bowling Green on Interstate 65 to Louisville said he saw about 20 trucks with military vehicles that same day going North too.  I was going up Interstate 75 to Lexington Kentucky.

 I then went on a small road to Winchester and passed this Homeland Security truck.  I waited on the side of the road ahead of it to capture the picture.  I was not able to get pictures of all the other military vehicles except for one.  I saw many armored vehicles similar to this Homeland Security vehicle on trucks but they did not say Homeland Security on them. 

Coming back yesterday (Saturday 28th) I saw more going North again.

I know there are military bases around but it sure does seem they are moving a lot of vehicles right now and they were all going North.  I did not see any going South at all.

Anyone else noticing a lot of moving of military vehicles?  Anyone seeing these Homeland Security vehicles on trucks around the country?

Why were they going through the small town of Winchester Kentucky with it? 






















Edit - Added 5:15 Pm - I was just looking at my pictures closer. I just noticed two things. One there is no license plates on the trucks. Second.... notice how the DHS armored vehicle has a backwards American Flag in front? Why is the flag backwards?


Update. ChrisinMaryville,  Sent me the answer to my question about the Flag.

Why is the flag displayed in reverse on the hood?

When the flag is stationary, the constellation is in the place of honor in the upper left corner.

However, when the flag is attached to something that moves, the constellation is placed to represent the flag being carried forward, so viewed from the starboard side where the "staff/mast" would be at the front of the vehicle with the constellation in the upper right). It's been this way for a long, long time. At least since immediately prior to WWII.

UPDATE 9/6/12 - Rense has an article and pictures of the same DHS type vehicle I have above.   They show a police one too. 

Smoky Mountains National Park - A UN "World Heritage" and "Biosphere Reserve". My research into those meanings and UN - U.S. National Parks. I live in East Tennessee. I recently took a friend of mine who was visiting me up to the Smoky Mountains National Park. I love going up into the mountains and have gone many times needless to say. We camp up there often at the Elkmont campgrounds inside the park. Which as a side note has one of the only two places in the world where the fireflies are synchronized during their peak time, the first week of June. The fireflies blink at exactly the same time in the Elkmont campground - Millionaires Row area. Another side note - The Smoky Mountains are considered one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world. They are 200 to 300 Million years old. The Great Smoky Mountains are among the oldest mountains in the world, formed perhaps 200-300 million years ago. They are unique in their northeast to southwest orientation, which allowed species to migrate along their slopes during climatic changes such as the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, the glaciers of the last ice age affected the Smoky Mountains without invading them. During that time, glaciers scoured much of North America but did not quite reach as far south as the Smokies. Consequently, these mountains became a refuge for many species of plants and animals that were disrupted from their northern homes. The Smokies have been relatively undisturbed by glaciers or ocean inundation for over a million years, allowing species eons to diversify. We got up to Newfound Gap where the Tennessee and North Carolina State line divides the park, which I have gone to multiple times. We walked down the viewing walkway away from the main area that people congregate at. When we got to steps that go back up to the parking spaces, there were two plaques on either side of the steps, attached to the stone walls. somewhat obscured. I stopped to read them for the first time ever. I was surprised at what I read and took pictures of the plaques to research the information on the internet and find out what exactly the plaques meanings were. Here are the pictures I took and what the plaques say: I thought "What the Hell is a UN World Heritage site?" The way it read to me is that the Smoky Mountains are not actually a National Park of the United States and thus the People of the United States are not the owners, but is controlled by the United Nations. Did our U.S. government give up our national park to the UN in 1983? I am sure the average person who reads the plaques think "Oh, how awesome these mountains are considered 'World owned mountains and are protected through the UN.' But for those of us who know about the UN Agenda 21, we know that it means the U.S gives up Sovereignty to the UN to become a "One World Government and control of land and resources." Needless to say the above plaques disturbed me and I wanted to know exactly what their meanings were. I have now done the research and have found the U.S. government has given the UN control of most of our National Parks, including the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Redwood Forest, Mammoth Caves, Statue of Liberty, Olympic National Park, the Everglades, the list goes on. Here is the map of the 21 sites that the U.S. has allowed the UN to have as "World Heritage" sites. Here is the list of the 21 sites in the United States: Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List (21) Cultural Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site (1982) Chaco Culture (1987) Independence Hall (1979) La Fortaleza and San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico (1983) Mesa Verde National Park (1978) Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville (1987) Pueblo de Taos (1992) Statue of Liberty (1984) Natural Carlsbad Caverns National Park (1995) Everglades National Park (1979) Grand Canyon National Park (1979) Great Smoky Mountains National Park (1983) Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (1987) Kluane / Wrangell-St Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek (1979) Mammoth Cave National Park (1981) Olympic National Park (1981) Redwood National and State Parks (1980) Waterton Glacier International Peace Park (1995) Yellowstone National Park (1978) Yosemite National Park (1984) Mixed Papahānaumokuākea (2010) Now, here is the map of All the UN "World Heritage" Sites throughout the world. There are 936 of them. I began doing lots of searches for exactly what the meaning of "World Heritage and Biosphere" meant. Here are a few of the sites I found and what they say about it: http://whc.unesco.org/en/faq The World Heritage List Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List? The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole. The World Heritage Committee, a group of 21 representatives from countries who have agreed to abide by the convention, decides which sites of "outstanding universal value" qualify for World Heritage status. UNESCO, or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, adopted the World Heritage designation in 1972 after it was uncertain if some of the world's landmarks would survive into the future. http://www.unesco.org/en/education-for-sustainable-development/themes/environment/ http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ http://www.georgewright.org/mab On the other hand, many concerns about how biosphere reserves operate in the U.S. are factually based, reasonable, and put forth in good faith. This category of objections includes legitimate concerns about national sovereignty, the status of private property within biosphere reserves, the amount of control the United Nations has over the management of land included within biosphere reserves, and the effect that biosphere reserves might have on the economy of nearby communities. The fundamental point is that UNESCO, the MAB Council, the MAB National Committees, or any other part of the United Nations have no power to force changes in land/resource management or ownership upon governments, public agencies, or private parties in the United States (or any other country, for that matter). Through the MAB Council, UNESCO does set standards for biosphere reserves, and through periodic reviews it assesses whether the standards are being promoted. If they aren’t, the Council encourages the reserve manager to make the changes necessary to do so, but cannot force any changes. The United States' participation in the biosphere reserve progam is entirely voluntary, and land within U.S. biosphere reserves remains under the control of its owners. What does "biosphere" mean? The word "biosphere" refers to the three regions of the Earth capable of being occupied by living organisms: (1) the surface of the Earth (land, oceans, lakes, rivers, and other waters); (2) close-lying subsurface areas occupied by plants and animals (including microorganisms), and (3) the low-altitude atmosphere where birds, insects, other flying animals, and plants can live. If you imagine a cross-section of the Earth in space, a side view of the planet as if it were cut in half from top to bottom, the biosphere would be a very thin slice of the total picture — no more than the "skin" of the Earth along with the area just above and below it. The word "biosphere" therefore conveys a special quality of rarity and value, and of life's inherent fragility. MAB was launched in 1970, and was formally endorsed by U.N. Member States at the U.N. Conference on the Environment (the first "Earth Summit") in 1972. The original aim of MAB was to establish protected areas representing the main ecosystems of the planet in which genetic resources could be protected and research and monitoring could be carried out. These protected areas were to be called "biosphere reserves" in reference to the MAB program's name. Like all scientific programs, MAB has been refined over the years but still is committed to its original aims. Today, MAB is a set of related scientific research projects with three focuses: Minimizing the loss of biological diversity; Making people aware of how cultural diversity and biological diversity affect each other; and Promoting environmental sustainability through the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. What's a biosphere reserve? A biosphere reserve is a unique kind of protected area that differs from a national park, wilderness area, national forest, or wildlife refuge in several important ways. Biosphere reserves have three very different, but equal, aims: conservation of genetic resources, species, and ecosystems; scientific research and monitoring; and promoting sustainable development in communities of the surrounding region. All three of these aims are equally important in a biosphere reserve. (National parks and other kinds of protected natural areas usually are primarily concerned with conservation, and only secondarily with research and sustainable development.) Under what legal authority are biosphere reserves created? Biosphere reserves are not the object of a binding international agreement or treaty. Instead, they are governed by a "soft law" — the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves — adopted by the UNESCO General Conference. The participation of U.N. Member States in the UNESCO General Conference is the point of national oversight on the MAB Program. It is the responsibility of each country, through its MAB National Committee, to ensure that the biosphere reserves respond to the criteria and function properly. In most countries it is not been found necessary to enact special national legislation for biosphere reserves; instead, existing legal frameworks for nature protection and land/water management are used. That being said, today an increasing number of countries are passing national biosphere reserve legislation in order to make their legal status perfectly clear. MAB and the United States The U.S.'s role in MAB The U.S. MAB Program is a voluntary, interagency effort which operates within the existing authorities of the participating agencies. Established in 1974, U.S. MAB is operates under a National Committee. Currently, that Committee is dormant. U.S. MAB' s mission statement is as follows: The mission of the United States MAB Program is to explore, demonstrate, promote, and encourage harmonious relationships between people and their environments building on the MAB network of Biosphere Reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long-term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century. The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally, through public-private partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative interdisciplinary research, experimentation, education and information exchange on options by which societies can achieve sustainability. **So, I read all the above and thought "It is saying two different things." First it says the sites are still the sovereign nations of where they are located. Then it says they are controlled and made sure to be kept under the strict guidelines of the UN. So.... Which is it? I found this article about what has occurred in the past and the article does say the sites are given up by the countries where they are located. Portions of article: UN’s World Heritage Sites Infringe on US National Sovereignty As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory. However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter. Because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has just announced his selections of 14 more sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites. Today, of the original 22 UN Heritage Sites that are located on American soil, fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves and monuments are included in the UN designations. Proponents of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government. If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF? WHO OWNS WORLD HERITAGE SITES? It is true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. It is also true that you will not find blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites. To fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in our government see such programs as another tool to build massive federal land-control programs. There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use. The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation. Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of these lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site. That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine - located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site and called for a protective buffer zone of 150-MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE PARK. The buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres of private property. Such is the purpose of the World Heritage Sites. Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United States is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Biodiversity Treaty - a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United States Senate. Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the “Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.” Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.” A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention” states: “In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.” In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t suppose to worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their property. This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Administration is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power. By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS. In a nutshell, here is the real game being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands. That is why it is charged that World Heritage Sites are an infringement on United States sovereignty. You won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the policies. So someone else obviously researched What a World Heritage site means previously. They found and came to the same conclusion I did after my research. Even though the U.S. government and the UN says it is an 'Honor' to have a "World Heritage" site and it stays under the control of the country it is in. That is not true, once you read the "fine print" of it all. The facts are our National Parks are not really OURS, they are the United Nations and World National Parks. The United Nations actually has the full Control over the parks. They have in fact stepped in when places have become 'at risk' So, when you go to our gorgeous "National" Parks, you will now know they are not really National Parks but are UN controlled "World" Parks. ___________________________________________________ Edit to add 3/5/13 - I have found more documents regarding the UN control of our National Parks and how they do control them. documents about the Smoky Mountains and their decisions. An updated page from the UN site about the mountains - they state the mountain area is of world importance. Great Smoky Mountains National Park is of world importance as the outstanding example of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era, providing an indication of what the late Pleistocene flora looked like before recent human impacts. Update 3/6/13 - A Technical Review of UN World Heritage Sites The below are just a few paragraphs from the link. I advice reading the whole thing, as it mentions various National Parks in the review. Portions: The World Heritage Convention was signed by the United States and adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization on November 16, 1972. The purpose of the convention is to establish "an effective system of collective protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value" currently referred to as "global commons." In 1995 there were 469 cultural and natural sites designated in 105 countries around the world, of which 20 are found in the United States. UNESCO then goes on to say, "The Convention thus assumes and affirms the existence of a World Heritage which belongs to all mankind" or global commons. Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the State [nation]...State Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate." The procedures for listing of cultural and natural properties begin at Paragraph 17 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines for Implementing the World Heritage Convention. Procedures for cultural sites are specifically found starting at Paragraph 23, while those dealing with natural heritage sites begin at Paragraph 43. In relationship to the nomination of a site for listing, Paragraph 14 of the guidelines states that areas are to be nominated without "undue publicity" and with the participation of local people, only so far as they don't "prejudice future decision-making by the Committee." The question of how far the World Heritage Committee can extend its authority is still unanswered, but it is certain that this question will move into the national and international court systems in the near future.

Smoky Mountains National Park - A UN "World Heritage" and "Biosphere Reserve". My research into those meanings and UN - U.S. National Parks.

I live in East Tennessee.  I recently took a friend of mine who was visiting me up to the Smoky Mountains National Park. 

I love going up into the mountains and have gone many times needless to say.  We camp up there often at the Elkmont campgrounds inside the park.  Which as a side note has one of the only two places in the world where the fireflies are synchronized during their peak time,  the first week of June.  The fireflies blink at exactly the same time in the Elkmont campground - Millionaires Row area.

Another side note - The Smoky Mountains are considered one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world.  They are 200 to 300 Million years old.
The Great Smoky Mountains are among the oldest mountains in the world, formed perhaps 200-300 million years ago. They are unique in their northeast to southwest orientation, which allowed species to migrate along their slopes during climatic changes such as the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, the glaciers of the last ice age affected the Smoky Mountains without invading them. During that time, glaciers scoured much of North America but did not quite reach as far south as the Smokies. Consequently, these mountains became a refuge for many species of plants and animals that were disrupted from their northern homes. The Smokies have been relatively undisturbed by glaciers or ocean inundation for over a million years, allowing species eons to diversify.

We got up to Newfound Gap where the Tennessee and North Carolina State line divides the park, which I have gone to multiple times.  We walked down the viewing walkway away from the main area that people congregate at.  When we got to steps that go back up to the parking spaces, there were two plaques on either side of the steps, attached to the stone walls. somewhat obscured.  I stopped to read them for the first time ever.  I was surprised at what I read and took pictures of the plaques to research the information on the internet and find out what exactly the plaques meanings were.

Here are the pictures I took and what the plaques say:




I thought "What the Hell is a UN World Heritage site?"  The way it read to me is that the Smoky Mountains are not actually a National Park of the United States and thus the People of the United States are not the owners, but is controlled by the United Nations.

Did our U.S. government give up our national park to the UN in 1983?

I am sure the average person who reads the plaques think "Oh, how awesome these mountains are considered 'World owned mountains and are protected through the UN.'

But for those of us who know about the UN Agenda 21, we know that it means the U.S gives up Sovereignty to the UN to become a "One World Government and control of land and resources."



Needless to say the above plaques disturbed me and I wanted to know exactly what their meanings were.

I have now done the research and have found the U.S. government has given the UN control of most of our National Parks, including the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Redwood Forest, Mammoth Caves, Statue of Liberty, Olympic National Park, the Everglades, the list goes on.  Here is the map of the 21 sites that the U.S. has allowed the UN to have as "World Heritage" sites.


Here is the list of the 21 sites in the United States:

Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List (21)

Cultural
Natural
Mixed

Now, here is the map of All the UN "World Heritage" Sites throughout the world.  There are 936 of them.





I began doing lots of searches for exactly what the meaning of "World Heritage and Biosphere" meant.

Here are a few of the sites I found and what they say about it:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/faq

The World Heritage List


Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?

The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

The World Heritage Committee, a group of 21 representatives from countries who have agreed to abide by the convention, decides which sites of "outstanding universal value" qualify for World Heritage status. UNESCO, or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, adopted the World Heritage designation in 1972 after it was uncertain if some of the world's landmarks would survive into the future.

http://www.unesco.org/en/education-for-sustainable-development/themes/environment/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/

http://www.georgewright.org/mab

On the other hand, many concerns about how biosphere reserves operate in the U.S. are factually based, reasonable, and put forth in good faith. This category of objections includes legitimate concerns about national sovereignty, the status of private property within biosphere reserves, the amount of control the United Nations has over the management of land included within biosphere reserves, and the effect that biosphere reserves might have on the economy of nearby communities.
The fundamental point is that UNESCO, the MAB Council, the MAB National Committees, or any other part of the United Nations have no power to force changes in land/resource management or ownership upon governments, public agencies, or private parties in the United States (or any other country, for that matter). Through the MAB Council, UNESCO does set standards for biosphere reserves, and through periodic reviews it assesses whether the standards are being promoted. If they aren’t, the Council encourages the reserve manager to make the changes necessary to do so, but cannot force any changes. The United States' participation in the biosphere reserve progam is entirely voluntary, and land within U.S. biosphere reserves remains under the control of its owners.


What does "biosphere" mean? 

The word "biosphere" refers to the three regions of the Earth capable of being occupied by living organisms: (1) the surface of the Earth (land, oceans, lakes, rivers, and other waters); (2) close-lying subsurface areas occupied by plants and animals (including microorganisms), and (3) the low-altitude atmosphere where birds, insects, other flying animals, and plants can live. If you imagine a cross-section of the Earth in space, a side view of the planet as if it were cut in half from top to bottom, the biosphere would be a very thin slice of the total picture — no more than the "skin" of the Earth along with the area just above and below it. The word "biosphere" therefore conveys a special quality of rarity and value, and of life's inherent fragility.

MAB was launched in 1970, and was formally endorsed by U.N. Member States at the U.N. Conference on the Environment (the first "Earth Summit") in 1972. The original aim of MAB was to establish protected areas representing the main ecosystems of the planet in which genetic resources could be protected and research and monitoring could be carried out. These protected areas were to be called "biosphere reserves" in reference to the MAB program's name.


Like all scientific programs, MAB has been refined over the years but still is committed to its original aims. Today, MAB is a set of related scientific research projects with three focuses:

  • Minimizing the loss of biological diversity;
  • Making people aware of how cultural diversity and biological diversity affect each other; and
  • Promoting environmental sustainability through the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
What's a biosphere reserve?
A biosphere reserve is a unique kind of protected area that differs from a national park, wilderness area, national forest, or wildlife refuge in several important ways.

  • Biosphere reserves have three very different, but equal, aims: conservation of genetic resources, species, and ecosystems; scientific research and monitoring; and promoting sustainable development in communities of the surrounding region. All three of these aims are equally important in a biosphere reserve. (National parks and other kinds of protected natural areas usually are primarily concerned with conservation, and only secondarily with research and sustainable development.)

Under what legal authority are biosphere reserves created?

Biosphere reserves are not the object of a binding international agreement or treaty. Instead, they are governed by a "soft law" — the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves — adopted by the UNESCO General Conference. The participation of U.N. Member States in the UNESCO General Conference is the point of national oversight on the MAB Program. It is the responsibility of each country, through its MAB National Committee, to ensure that the biosphere reserves respond to the criteria and function properly.

In most countries it is not been found necessary to enact special national legislation for biosphere reserves; instead, existing legal frameworks for nature protection and land/water management are used. That being said, today an increasing number of countries are passing national biosphere reserve legislation in order to make their legal status perfectly clear.

MAB and the United States

The U.S.'s role in MAB

The U.S. MAB Program is a voluntary, interagency effort which operates within the existing authorities of the participating agencies. Established in 1974, U.S. MAB is operates under a National Committee. Currently, that Committee is dormant.

U.S. MAB' s mission statement is as follows:

The mission of the United States MAB Program is to explore, demonstrate, promote, and encourage harmonious relationships between people and their environments building on the MAB network of Biosphere Reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long-term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century. The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally, through public-private partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative interdisciplinary research, experimentation, education and information exchange on options by which societies can achieve sustainability.
**So, I read all the above and thought "It is saying two different things."  First it says the sites are still the sovereign nations of where they are located.  Then it says they are controlled and made sure to be kept under the strict guidelines of the UN.   So.... Which is it?

I found this article about what has occurred in the past and the article does say the sites are given up by the countries where they are located.

Portions of article:

UN’s World Heritage Sites Infringe on US National Sovereignty

 

As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory.

However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter. Because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has just announced his selections of 14 more sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites.
Today, of the original 22 UN Heritage Sites that are located on American soil, fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves and monuments are included in the UN designations.


Proponents of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government.

If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?

WHO OWNS WORLD HERITAGE SITES?

It is true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. It is also true that you will not find blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites.

To fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in our government see such programs as another tool to build massive federal land-control programs.

There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.

The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation.

Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of these lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site.

That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine - located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site and called for a protective buffer zone of 150-MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE PARK. The buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres of private property. Such is the purpose of the World Heritage Sites.

Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United States is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Biodiversity Treaty - a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United States Senate.

Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the “Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.” Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.”

A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention” states:

“In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.”

In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t suppose to worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their property.

This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Administration is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power.

By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS.

In a nutshell, here is the real game being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands.

That is why it is charged that World Heritage Sites are an infringement on United States sovereignty. You won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the policies.

 

So someone else obviously researched What a World Heritage site means previously.  They found and came to the same conclusion I did after my research.  Even though the U.S. government and the UN says it is an 'Honor' to have a "World Heritage" site and it stays under the control of the country it is in.  That is not true, once you read the "fine print" of it all.  The facts are our National Parks are not really OURS, they are the United Nations and World National Parks.  The United Nations actually has the full Control over the parks.  They have in fact stepped in when places have become 'at risk' 
 
So, when you go to our gorgeous "National" Parks, you will now know they are not really National Parks but are UN controlled "World" Parks. 
___________________________________________________
Edit to add 3/5/13 - I have found more documents regarding the UN control of our National Parks and how they do control them.

documents about the Smoky Mountains and their decisions. 

An updated page from the UN site about the mountains - they state the mountain area is of world importance.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park is of world importance as the outstanding example of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era, providing an indication of what the late Pleistocene flora looked like before recent human impacts.

Update 3/6/13 - A Technical Review of UN World Heritage Sites
The below are just a few paragraphs from the link.  I advice reading the whole thing, as it mentions various National Parks in the review.

Portions:

The World Heritage Convention was signed by the United States and adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization on November 16, 1972. The purpose of the convention is to establish "an effective system of collective protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value" currently referred to as "global commons." In 1995 there were 469 cultural and natural sites designated in 105 countries around the world, of which 20 are found in the United States.

 UNESCO then goes on to say, "The Convention thus assumes and affirms the existence of a World Heritage which belongs to all mankind" or global commons.

Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the State [nation]...State Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate."

The procedures for listing of cultural and natural properties begin at Paragraph 17 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines for Implementing the World Heritage Convention. Procedures for cultural sites are specifically found starting at Paragraph 23, while those dealing with natural heritage sites begin at Paragraph 43. In relationship to the nomination of a site for listing, Paragraph 14 of the guidelines states that areas are to be nominated without "undue publicity" and with the participation of local people, only so far as they don't "prejudice future decision-making by the Committee."

The question of how far the World Heritage Committee can extend its authority is still unanswered, but it is certain that this question will move into the national and international court systems in the near future.

Richmond, KY Monitoring the chemical weapons stockpile Toxic Chemical Workers perform a meticulous inspection of chemical weapons. Monitoring the chemical weapons stockpile frequently ensures the safety of the workers, environment and community. Download High-Res Image The Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) is one of nine Army installations in the United States and currently stores chemical weapons. Located near Richmond, Ky., BGAD, a subordinate installation of the Joint Munitions Command, encompasses approximately 14,600 acres, comprised mainly of open fields and wooded areas. The depot is primarily involved with industrial and related activities associated with the storage and maintenance of conventional and chemical munitions. The Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA), a tenant organization of the depot that reports to the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Activity (CMA), is responsible for the safe, secure storage of the chemical weapons stockpile stored at the depot, which comprises 523 tons of nerve agents GB and VX, and mustard agent in projectiles, warheads and rockets. The U.S. Army Element, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives, known as ACWA, is the Department of Defense program responsible for the destruction of chemical weapons in Kentucky. Working in partnership with the community, the technology known as neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) was selected in 2003 to destroy the chemical weapons stockpile. Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass is the systems contractor that will design, construct, systemize, pilot test, operate and close the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant. Safety and Security The safety of workers, the public and the environment are paramount to the success of the chemical weapons disposal mission. The U.S. Army Chemical Materials Activity (CMA) oversees the secure storage of chemical munitions to ensure that they are safe. BGAD and BGCA are committed to the safe and secure storage of the chemical weapons until the stockpile can be eliminated. Public Participation and Community Relations The Kentucky Chemical Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission serves as a forum for exchanging information about the chemical weapons destruction project and represents community and state interests to the Army and Department of Defense, to ensure that the public is fully informed about the program. The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program works closely with your community and state emergency professionals to develop emergency plans and provide chemical accident response equipment and warning systems. To learn more about the Army’s chemical weapons disposal mission visit the Blue Grass Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office. News Release Section Header BGCA Monthly Newsletter - July 2012 [630KB pdf] 7/31/2012 Blue Grass , KY - Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Grice held his first town hall and upon arrial there was something eerily different. Lieutenant Colonel Christopher A. Grice - Commander, Blue Grass Chemical Activity [223KB pdf] 7/11/2012 Blue Grass , KY - He assumed command of the Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA), US Army Chemical Materials Agency, in July 2012. Monitors Detect Mustard Vapor Leak [83KB pdf] 3/12/2012 Blue Grass , KY - Army officials report a Real Time Analytical Platform, a mobile monitoring laboratory, detected low levels of Mustard agent vapor in a chemical weapons igloo containing 155 mm projectiles this morning. BGCA Bi-Weekly Update - March 12, 2012 [270KB pdf] 3/12/2012 Blue Grass , KY - “All of you showed true patriotism by providing cards and notes of support to Wounded Warriors” stated Lt. Col. Steven Basso during an award presentation Feb. 8, to two first grade classes at Kit Carson Elementary School. News Release Section FooterNews Release Section Footer Background Multimedia Photos RTAP discussion Blue Grass more multimedia Learn More News Releases Publications & Fact Sheets Reports Multimedia Section FooterNews Release Section Footer Background U.S. Army Home FOIA Last Modified on Thursday, September 06, 2012 Security & Privacy Accessibility usarmy.APG.uscma.mbx.webmaster@mail.mil Print this Page

Richmond, KY
 
Monitoring the chemical weapons stockpile

Toxic Chemical Workers perform a meticulous inspection of chemical weapons. Monitoring the chemical weapons stockpile frequently ensures the safety of the workers, environment and community.
Download High-Res Image
The Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) is one of nine Army installations in the United States and currently stores chemical weapons. Located near Richmond, Ky., BGAD, a subordinate installation of the Joint Munitions Command, encompasses approximately 14,600 acres, comprised mainly of open fields and wooded areas. The depot is primarily involved with industrial and related activities associated with the storage and maintenance of conventional and chemical munitions.
The Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA), a tenant organization of the depot that reports to the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Activity (CMA), is responsible for the safe, secure storage of the chemical weapons stockpile stored at the depot, which comprises 523 tons of nerve agents GB and VX, and mustard agent in projectiles, warheads and rockets.
The U.S. Army Element, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives, known as ACWA, is the Department of Defense program responsible for the destruction of chemical weapons in Kentucky. Working in partnership with the community, the technology known as neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) was selected in 2003 to destroy the chemical weapons stockpile.
Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass is the systems contractor that will design, construct, systemize, pilot test, operate and close the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant.

Safety and Security

The safety of workers, the public and the environment are paramount to the success of the chemical weapons disposal mission. The U.S. Army Chemical Materials Activity (CMA) oversees the secure storage of chemical munitions to ensure that they are safe.
BGAD and BGCA are committed to the safe and secure storage of the chemical weapons until the stockpile can be eliminated.

Public Participation and Community Relations

The Kentucky Chemical Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission serves as a forum for exchanging information about the chemical weapons destruction project and represents community and state interests to the Army and Department of Defense, to ensure that the public is fully informed about the program.
The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program works closely with your community and state emergency professionals to develop emergency plans and provide chemical accident response equipment and warning systems.
To learn more about the Army’s chemical weapons disposal mission visit the Blue Grass Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office.
News Release Section Header
BGCA Monthly Newsletter - July 2012 [630KB pdf] 7/31/2012 Blue Grass , KY  - Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Grice held his first town hall and upon arrial there was something eerily different.
Lieutenant Colonel Christopher A. Grice - Commander, Blue Grass Chemical Activity [223KB pdf] 7/11/2012 Blue Grass , KY  - He assumed command of the Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA), US Army Chemical Materials Agency, in July 2012.
Monitors Detect Mustard Vapor Leak [83KB pdf] 3/12/2012 Blue Grass , KY  - Army officials report a Real Time Analytical Platform, a mobile monitoring laboratory, detected low levels of Mustard agent vapor in a chemical weapons igloo containing 155 mm projectiles this morning.
BGCA Bi-Weekly Update - March 12, 2012 [270KB pdf] 3/12/2012 Blue Grass , KY  - “All of you showed true patriotism by providing cards and notes of support to Wounded Warriors” stated Lt. Col. Steven Basso during an award presentation Feb. 8, to two first grade classes at Kit Carson Elementary School.
News Release Section FooterNews Release Section Footer Background

Multimedia
Photos
RTAP discussion Blue Grass
Learn More
Multimedia Section FooterNews Release Section Footer Background
 


usarmy.APG.uscma.mbx.webmaster@mail.milPrint this Page
 

Homeland Security and Military Vehicles - Pictures I Captured while in Kentucky UPDATE 3/4/13 9:32 Am - I am bringing this up to the top, (I originally wrote and published it, in July of 2012) due to the fact it has been disclosed DHS has purchased 2700 of these for the streets of the U.S. The picture I got has #1 on it. So was it the prototype and is being built somewhere in Kentucky? Edit to add 12:45 pm 3/4/13 : check back - I am working on an article from a real source of intelligence given to me this morning regarding these vehicles. It is very explosive and completely bizarre information. I will link the article here, when I am finished with it. Update 7:30 Pm - Here is the article mentioned above: DHS Armored Vehicles (as pictured below) with Russian Troops that had DHS uniforms on being Stopped from coming into Tennessee from Kentucky. __________________________________________________________________________ I was in Kentucky this last week. While driving up there I came across at least 10 different trucks hauling military vehicles going North. I even came across them in the small town of Winchester Kentucky, which is where I took the first picture of a Homeland Security armored vehicle. A friend who was driving up the other way through Bowling Green on Interstate 65 to Louisville said he saw about 20 trucks with military vehicles that same day going North too. I was going up Interstate 75 to Lexington Kentucky. I then went on a small road to Winchester and passed this Homeland Security truck. I waited on the side of the road ahead of it to capture the picture. I was not able to get pictures of all the other military vehicles except for one. I saw many armored vehicles similar to this Homeland Security vehicle on trucks but they did not say Homeland Security on them. Coming back yesterday (Saturday 28th) I saw more going North again. I know there are military bases around but it sure does seem they are moving a lot of vehicles right now and they were all going North. I did not see any going South at all. Anyone else noticing a lot of moving of military vehicles? Anyone seeing these Homeland Security vehicles on trucks around the country? Why were they going through the small town of Winchester Kentucky with it? Edit - Added 5:15 Pm - I was just looking at my pictures closer. I just noticed two things. One there is no license plates on the trucks. Second.... notice how the DHS armored vehicle has a backwards American Flag in front? Why is the flag backwards? Update. ChrisinMaryville, Sent me the answer to my question about the Flag. Why is the flag displayed in reverse on the hood? When the flag is stationary, the constellation is in the place of honor in the upper left corner. However, when the flag is attached to something that moves, the constellation is placed to represent the flag being carried forward, so viewed from the starboard side where the "staff/mast" would be at the front of the vehicle with the constellation in the upper right). It's been this way for a long, long time. At least since immediately prior to WWII. UPDATE 9/6/12 - Rense has an article and pictures of the same DHS type vehicle I have above. They show a police one too.

Homeland Security and Military Vehicles - Pictures I Captured while in Kentucky

UPDATE 3/4/13 9:32 Am - I am bringing this up to the top, (I originally wrote and published it, in July of 2012) due to the fact it has been disclosed DHS has purchased 2700 of these for the streets of the U.S.  The picture I got has #1 on it.  So was it the prototype and is being built somewhere in Kentucky?

Edit to add 12:45 pm 3/4/13 :  check back - I am working on an article from a real source of intelligence given to me this morning regarding these vehicles.   It is very explosive and completely bizarre information.   I will link the article here, when I am finished with it. 

Update 7:30 Pm - Here is the article mentioned above:

DHS Armored Vehicles (as pictured below) with Russian Troops that had DHS uniforms on being Stopped from coming into Tennessee from Kentucky.
__________________________________________________________________________

I was in Kentucky this last week.  While driving up there I came across at least 10 different trucks hauling military vehicles going North.  I even came across them in the small town of Winchester Kentucky, which is where I took the first picture of a Homeland Security armored vehicle.

 A friend who was driving up the other way through Bowling Green on Interstate 65 to Louisville said he saw about 20 trucks with military vehicles that same day going North too.  I was going up Interstate 75 to Lexington Kentucky.

 I then went on a small road to Winchester and passed this Homeland Security truck.  I waited on the side of the road ahead of it to capture the picture.  I was not able to get pictures of all the other military vehicles except for one.  I saw many armored vehicles similar to this Homeland Security vehicle on trucks but they did not say Homeland Security on them. 

Coming back yesterday (Saturday 28th) I saw more going North again.

I know there are military bases around but it sure does seem they are moving a lot of vehicles right now and they were all going North.  I did not see any going South at all.

Anyone else noticing a lot of moving of military vehicles?  Anyone seeing these Homeland Security vehicles on trucks around the country?

Why were they going through the small town of Winchester Kentucky with it? 






















Edit - Added 5:15 Pm - I was just looking at my pictures closer. I just noticed two things. One there is no license plates on the trucks. Second.... notice how the DHS armored vehicle has a backwards American Flag in front? Why is the flag backwards?


Update. ChrisinMaryville,  Sent me the answer to my question about the Flag.

Why is the flag displayed in reverse on the hood?

When the flag is stationary, the constellation is in the place of honor in the upper left corner.

However, when the flag is attached to something that moves, the constellation is placed to represent the flag being carried forward, so viewed from the starboard side where the "staff/mast" would be at the front of the vehicle with the constellation in the upper right). It's been this way for a long, long time. At least since immediately prior to WWII.

UPDATE 9/6/12 - Rense has an article and pictures of the same DHS type vehicle I have above.   They show a police one too. 

US tyranny to increase for foreseeable future government tyranny March 8, 2013 By: Anthony Martin Subscribe Many believe that Hillary is set to take the reins in 2016, continuing the Obama tyranny. Many believe that Hillary is set to take the reins in 2016, continuing the Obama tyranny. Credits: (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) 0 Email Republican newsletter Related topics government tyranny Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Founders Democracy majority rule Related Ads Conservative of The Government Hillary Clinton Obama Religion Advertisement A close friend who is politically astute, a Tea Party activist and Christian conservative, stated Wednesday in a private conversation that America as we know it is already lost, gone, destroyed. And not a single shot was fired. This was done entirely through the electoral process, the courts, and a clear majority of the electorate that does not share the philosophy, the mindset, or the world-view of the Founders, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or our nation's rich religious heritage. An all-important threshold was crossed, quite imperceptibly and thus totally without notice, that brought the nation into what the Founders referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." The Founders loathed the concept of "democracy" for this very reason, and they were careful to place safeguards and limitations on government and the electorate to prevent the removal of the rights of citizens by majority vote. Majority rule is mob rule and is thus no more just, fair, or acceptable that a monarchy or dictatorship. As long as the majority adheres to sane, rational concepts that hold absolute power in check and that places limits on government power, well and good. But once the dreaded threshold is crossed in which the majority no longer believes in those sane, rational concepts, then democracy becomes just as oppressive and potentially dangerous as any tyrannical government system on earth. Barack Obama lamented both before and after he was elected that the Constitution places limits on government power. As long as a majority of Americans disagreed with him and believed that such limits are a good thing, there was no danger. But apparently a threshold was crossed sometime within the last decade wherein a majority of voters agree with Obama that the Constitution is "out of date" and needs to be amended to allow more government control over our lives. Laws are proposed that shake the collective fist at the Second Amendment rights of citizens, yet the voters keep sending these very same persons back to office year after year. Free speech can be attacked directly as a threat to government power by a jurist -- Elena Kagan -- who was later nominated by Obama and confirmed by an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate, Republicans included, for a seat on the Supreme Court, and yet most Americans yawn and go back to sleep. Obama can in effect nullify the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the 14th Amendment yet he still manages to garner the support of 45 to 50 percent of the electorate. Obama perpetrated two gargantuan scandals, the worst in U.S. history, with the Benghazi debacle and the Fast and Furious fiasco. Yet to date nothing has been done about it. The henchmen in the administration who carried out these schemes have been rewarded. And so far the public has demanded nothing, but rather swallows hook, line, and sinker the lies of the media co-conspirators at NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. And Obama can claim he has the power to kill Americans in cold blood on U.S. soil, without charges, an arrest, a trial in a court of law, a verdict by a jury, and a sentence by a judge, yet no one took to the streets to scream bloody murder. A lone U.S. Senator, Rand Paul, took to the floor of the chamber to launch an old fashioned filibuster to protest. He was joined by a mere eleven other senators. But fellow Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham blasted Paul, calling him "ridiculous" and a "wacko bird." Today a major poll was released by Quinnipiac University which shows that Americans are set to continue electing to office those who will only expand the mindset that is central to the current tyranny. Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite for 2016, and Chris Christie is the favorite of Republicans, although the poll shows Hillary would beat him. No one else on the national stage comes close to the support that these two would garner. The horrifying problems regarding Hillary are well-known and have been hashed and rehashed many times. But Christie is not an acceptable opponent. He supports Obamacare, he is in favor of unconstitutional gun control laws, and his ties to Muslim extremists are particularly troublesome for those who watch and monitor such things. Yet here we are as a nation. We got here entirely through the electoral process. The question thus becomes, are the rest of us obligated to abide by the will of the majority when it is abundantly clear that majority has not only fallen into tyranny and oppression but actually perpetuates them? Those who have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the progressive lie and revisionist history that we live in a "democracy" and that "the majority rules" no matter what will say yes, we are obligated to live under such tyranny. But the Founders and the patriots would say the opposite. Which, therefore, are you? Are you a sheep being led to the slaughter? Or are you an American patriot in the tradition of the Founders, who stated incessantly that any government that does things that are contrary to the Constitution is an illegitimate government that no longer has the moral authority to govern? And if that government no longer has the moral authority to govern, the citizens are not obligated to obey it. (Hat tip to David Codrea). NOTICE. You may enjoy my blog and its ongoing series, "Musings After Midnight." The following are a few examples: My latest blog entry in the series, Musings After Midnight, is now available at The Liberty Sphere. It's titled, "I get a vote, you get a vote, all God's children get a vote! That's right, Mr. President, and that includes gun rights activists!" You may also like "'I Shall Not Be Moved:' the bold declaration of patriots who have no intention of obeying unconstitutional laws." Also check out: "I'll see you in the war -- Civil War II: Notes on the coming calamity to restore the Constitution." Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.

US tyranny to increase for foreseeable future

A close friend who is politically astute, a Tea Party activist and Christian conservative, stated Wednesday in a private conversation that America as we know it is already lost, gone, destroyed.
And not a single shot was fired. This was done entirely through the electoral process, the courts, and a clear majority of the electorate that does not share the philosophy, the mindset, or the world-view of the Founders, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or our nation's rich religious heritage.
An all-important threshold was crossed, quite imperceptibly and thus totally without notice, that brought the nation into what the Founders referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."
The Founders loathed the concept of "democracy" for this very reason, and they were careful to place safeguards and limitations on government and the electorate to prevent the removal of the rights of citizens by majority vote.
Majority rule is mob rule and is thus no more just, fair, or acceptable that a monarchy or dictatorship. As long as the majority adheres to sane, rational concepts that hold absolute power in check and that places limits on government power, well and good. But once the dreaded threshold is crossed in which the majority no longer believes in those sane, rational concepts, then democracy becomes just as oppressive and potentially dangerous as any tyrannical government system on earth.
Barack Obama lamented both before and after he was elected that the Constitution places limits on government power. As long as a majority of Americans disagreed with him and believed that such limits are a good thing, there was no danger. But apparently a threshold was crossed sometime within the last decade wherein a majority of voters agree with Obama that the Constitution is "out of date" and needs to be amended to allow more government control over our lives.
Laws are proposed that shake the collective fist at the Second Amendment rights of citizens, yet the voters keep sending these very same persons back to office year after year. Free speech can be attacked directly as a threat to government power by a jurist -- Elena Kagan -- who was later nominated by Obama and confirmed by an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate, Republicans included, for a seat on the Supreme Court, and yet most Americans yawn and go back to sleep. Obama can in effect nullify the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the 14th Amendment yet he still manages to garner the support of 45 to 50 percent of the electorate.
Obama perpetrated two gargantuan scandals, the worst in U.S. history, with the Benghazi debacle and the Fast and Furious fiasco. Yet to date nothing has been done about it. The henchmen in the administration who carried out these schemes have been rewarded. And so far the public has demanded nothing, but rather swallows hook, line, and sinker the lies of the media co-conspirators at NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN.
And Obama can claim he has the power to kill Americans in cold blood on U.S. soil, without charges, an arrest, a trial in a court of law, a verdict by a jury, and a sentence by a judge, yet no one took to the streets to scream bloody murder. A lone U.S. Senator, Rand Paul, took to the floor of the chamber to launch an old fashioned filibuster to protest. He was joined by a mere eleven other senators.
But fellow Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham blasted Paul, calling him "ridiculous" and a "wacko bird."
Today a major poll was released by Quinnipiac University which shows that Americans are set to continue electing to office those who will only expand the mindset that is central to the current tyranny. Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite for 2016, and Chris Christie is the favorite of Republicans, although the poll shows Hillary would beat him. No one else on the national stage comes close to the support that these two would garner.
The horrifying problems regarding Hillary are well-known and have been hashed and rehashed many times. But Christie is not an acceptable opponent. He supports Obamacare, he is in favor of unconstitutional gun control laws, and his ties to Muslim extremists are particularly troublesome for those who watch and monitor such things.
Yet here we are as a nation. We got here entirely through the electoral process.
The question thus becomes, are the rest of us obligated to abide by the will of the majority when it is abundantly clear that majority has not only fallen into tyranny and oppression but actually perpetuates them?
Those who have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the progressive lie and revisionist history that we live in a "democracy" and that "the majority rules" no matter what will say yes, we are obligated to live under such tyranny.
But the Founders and the patriots would say the opposite.
Which, therefore, are you? Are you a sheep being led to the slaughter? Or are you an American patriot in the tradition of the Founders, who stated incessantly that any government that does things that are contrary to the Constitution is an illegitimate government that no longer has the moral authority to govern?
And if that government no longer has the moral authority to govern, the citizens are not obligated to obey it.
(Hat tip to David Codrea).
NOTICE. You may enjoy my blog and its ongoing series, "Musings After Midnight." The following are a few examples:
My latest blog entry in the series, Musings After Midnight, is now available at The Liberty Sphere. It's titled, "I get a vote, you get a vote, all God's children get a vote! That's right, Mr. President, and that includes gun rights activists!"
You may also like "'I Shall Not Be Moved:' the bold declaration of patriots who have no intention of obeying unconstitutional laws."
Also check out: "I'll see you in the war -- Civil War II: Notes on the coming calamity to restore the Constitution."
Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.

Tennessee State Militia/Guard Has Stopped DHS armored Vehicles from Kentucky – Russians with DHS Eagle uniforms

Tennessee State Militia/Guard Has Stopped DHS armored Vehicles from Kentucky – Russians with DHS Eagle uniforms


I am a seeker of TRUTH sharing it with others. Sometimes truth frightens people which is not my intent. My intent is for everyone to claim their own power through knowledge! Everyone has untapped Energy within themselves and truth channeled into LOVE for each other and all things can change our world, we do have the Power on our side! We ARE the Power together and able to change it all through LOVE and LIGHT!


I got an email from someone who I know and is part of the Tennessee State Militia/Guard.
The various units of the Tn. State Guard are listed here. 

Let me explain the Tennessee State Guard first.   22 Governors got together last year and created State Militia/Guards that can not be federalized as the National Guards can be.  They also did this due to the Federal government taking the equipment from the National Guards and sending it over to Iraq and Afghanistan.  When the Governors have requested the equipment back for the state the Federal government has said "It is too expensive to bring back."  The states have had to do without equipment for any emergencies of the individual states.

The governors decided they would form their own State Militias/Guards that can not be controlled by the federal government at any time and they are strictly under the State control along with all the equipment purchased.

The person who contacted me, did so due to my article about the DHS armored vehicles and the picture I took of one when I was in Kentucky. 

Here are the pictures I took.

Armored DHS vehicle in Kentucky

Armored DHS vehicle in Kentucky
The email with this information is from someone I have the utmost respect for.


Here is the contents of the  email from the person who is part of the Tennessee State Militia and was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago after getting the following email from them today 3/4/13 regarding the above Armored DHS vehicles.


At our last "meeting" several weeks ago, we were advised by a High Ranking Official of the State Guard that they stopped vehicles of this type coming from KY into TN. The troops were wearing very distinct uniforms for the Dept. of Homeland Security that were not recognized and the men they stopped were Eastern European, probably Russian. Apparently, there is some type of FEMA/DHS camp somewhere in Kentucky? 

 After receiving the above email, we spoke on the phone, I wanted to find out more information about the Russian/Eastern European DHS troops that were handling the armored vehicles.

During our phone conversation.  They told me that the uniforms were not typical DHS uniforms but they had Eagles on their sleeves and it was stressed these were different DHS uniforms than regular ones.   The Russian/Eastern troops were not armed that were in the DHS uniforms and they were very polite to the State Militia.  They were stopped from coming into Tennessee.  This person told me that in Gatlinburg, Tennessee people are reporting being questioned and stopped by DHS that are Russian.   I was also told that the high ranking official mentioned Kentucky FEMA camps.


I wrote about how I found out the Smoky Mountains are part of the UN last year, as most of our National Parks, including the Grand Canyon after I saw a plaque (took pictures of it) at Newfoundland Gap last year.

After speaking with this person, I have to wonder if Russian UN troops are now being placed around the Smoky Mountains.

I have researched and found what could be the Military installation that the armored vehicle came from pictured in the area of Kentucky, I saw them.   It is The Bluegrass Army Chemicals installation of 14600 acres.    That installation has 523 tons of Nerve Chemical weapons.   It is also a possible FEMA camp.  It has a very strange layout.  All of that information is in the video.

Video about the Russian Troops, DHS vehicles, 22 State Guard/Militias, Kentucky Chemical Depot/FEMA camp?, UN Biospheres:

  <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sVvvV2VSgew" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



It’s now clear: Obama intends to use drone strikes to kill American journalists and political enemies

It’s now clear: Obama intends to use drone strikes to kill American journalists and political enemies

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Mike Adams
Natural News
March 7, 2013
President Obama plans to use military drones in the skies over the United States to assassinate journalists, patriots and critics of his administration. That’s the inescapable conclusion from the emerging pattern of evidence now publicly available — keep reading for details.
Front and center in this pattern of evidence is the 16-page memo that was just released by Obama’s lawyers in the Department of Justice. This memo puts forth a “legal justification” for the President to order the drone assassination of any American citizen he names — anytime, anywhere, for any reason. This new power claimed by the President has no basis in federal law or the Constitution. It is an invented power of absolute tyranny that puts the power to decide who lives and who dies in the hands of one man. This document essentially legalizes the President acting as a serial murderer.
It is claimed that the purpose of this new power to simply name any American the President doesn’t like and immediately have them struck by a Hellfire missile launched from a drone is designed to “protect America.” Yet the 16-page memo that claims to justify all this was intentionally written to include Americans on U.S. soil as potential targets.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained just a few days ago on Fox News:
“This 16-page white paper is written so vaguely that the logic from it could… permit the President to kill Americans here in the United States.”
That’s the whole point, actually. If Americans on U.S. soil were to be excluded from such drone assassinations, such language would have been made readily apparent in the memo. But no such language is found in the memo. In fact, the tone of the document quite clearly states that the President has the authority to order drone killings of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, under any circumstances.
This legal manipulation even has U.S. Senators worried. Democrat Senator Patrick J Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley sent a letter to Obama on Friday, stating, “The deliberate killing of a United States citizen pursuant to a targeted operation authorized or aided by our government raises significant constitutional and legal concerns.”
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
That’s the understatement of the year.
U.S. Senators are trying to create an “oversight committee” so that a few of them are part of the illegal, unconstitutional decision process of which Americans the U.S. government should murder next. As Kurt Nimmo reports with InfoWars.com:
Feinstein has proposed “legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes,” in other words a secret tribunal that will hand down kill orders for Americans the government believes are “suspected militants.”
If drones are to be unleashed under the values of Feinstein — an outright traitor to the nation and a serial violator of the U.S. Constitution — then God help us all. Remember, Feinstein is the Senator who has already said she wants all Americans to turn all their guns in. She literally wants the entire U.S. civilian population disarmed so that government has all the weapons, including drones which Feinstein wants flying over U.S. cities, ready to strike named American citizens at any moment.
The American “battlefield” doctrine and the NDAA
In defending the drone assassination powers of the President, you might hear language used that says drones will “only be used on the battlefield.” That seems to imply they will only be used in the Middle East, right?
Wrong. The USA has been legally defined as the new “battlefield” by the NDAA. That’s theNational Defense Authorization Act which also allows for the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, without legal representation and even without them ever being charged.
The USA is the new “battlefield,” and when you combine the NDAA and the DOJ’s new drone killing justification memo, you now have the claimed legal framework for any American on U.S. soil to be arrested, detained, tortured or blown to bits without warning and without even a single shred of evidence being presented against him.
Yes, this is America today. Right now. You are living under a military dictatorship and most of you don’t even realize it yet. Even liberals and progressives are starting to wake up to Obama’s tyranny, by the way. On Democracy Now, Daniel Ellsberg recently described Obama’s actions as a “systematic assault on the Constitution.”
Who are the terrorists?
Of course, anyone who raises these points will be immediately dismissed with the claim that all this new power in the hands of the President will only be used “against terrorists.”
Okay, then who are the terrorists, exactly? It turns out they are YOU!
As Judge Napolitano recently explained:
The [Janet Napolitano DHS] memorandum said that people who are pro-life, people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, returning veterans, people who think the government is too big and the IRS is too powerful, could be characterized as domestic terrorists. That could characterize two-thirds of the country. (Click here to see related video.)
Another DHS report named as terrorists anyone who opposes illegal immigration, abortion or federal taxes.
The pieces of the puzzle
So now it all becomes clear:
1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American citizens if they were classified as “terrorists.”
2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simply claimingthey might be associated with “terrorists.”
3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn’t an absolutely Big Government boot-licker and Obama worshipper IS A TERRORIST.
And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs you up.
I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder of American citizens without trial is labeling them “terrorists” even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require no evidence. They only require the signature of one man.
Who is likely on the drone strike target list in the USA
So who is most likely to be assassinated by President Obama once drone strikes are fully unleashed in the USA?
• Journalists.
• Political opponents.
• Anti-government protesters. (One Hellfire missile takes ‘em all out.)
• Online activists.
• Veterans.
• Gun owners and gun shops.
• Constitutionalists and libertarians.
Drone strikes are completely silent because the Hellfire missiles arrive faster than the speed of sound. You don’t even hear the missile until after the explosion. The blast radius of a Hellfire missile is 15 – 20 meters, and everything inside that radius is completely obliterated. This is more than enough to destroy entire homes, apartments and office buildings, not to mention vehicles and even light bunkers.
World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being reelected, saying that he believed Obama would “kill journalists” if he won a second term. Farah is not being paranoid. He’s right on the money with where this is going. Click here to read his article published right before the 2012 election.
Drones are weapons of tyranny
In the history of America, rifles are the weapons of liberty, and in any war limited to just rifles and similar weapons, the People will always achieve victory over tyranny.
But tyrannies tend to rise up when specialized, highly-complex weapons come onto the scene, creating an imbalance of military power that suppresses the People. Drones are that new weapon: There is virtually no citizen defense against drones, and drones can strike targets anyone in the country with zero warning. You do not get called to appear in court, you do not get arrested, and you do not receive a warning. You’re simply murdered by the U.S. President without warning and without a trial. That’s the new America.
The cover story: Drone strikes that actually take out the homes of Obama’s political enemies can even be explained away as “bombings” using conventional explosives. A convenient cover story can keep drones out of the news, even while drone strikes are taking out journalists, activists and critics of the criminal Obama regime.
You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become the single most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why the government is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the hands of U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning that drone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, and this is what Americans must take back ifdrone mass murder is unleashed against American citizens (by any president, now or in the future).
There are also some high-tech defenses against drones. Iran appears to have hacked a drone by feeding it false GPS signals, guiding it to land on an Iranian runway where it was then taken into custody by the government there. This sort of GPS hacking appears to be relatively simple to accomplish, but the technique has never been proven in an actual military conflict.
Another defense against drones is to stay on the move. Don’t hole up in fixed locations for long periods of time. Drone strikes are only effective if the intended target’s location is known with certainty. In a resistance war against a tyrannical government, resistance forces will of course remain very mobile and unpredictable in their locations and movements. This will cause the government to waste lots of Hellfire missiles blowing up empty houses and likely killing the wrong people.
Every drone strike against U.S. targets will, of course, enrage the population even further, resulting in yet another mass wave of recruitment into the resistance. The more Americans Obama (or another president) kills with drones, the more powerful the resistance becomes. This spiral continues until there is either a violent armed overthrow of the government or the entire resistance movement is mass murdered by the government itself. In the case of the latter, that’s how we end up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other dictatorial tyrants who assume power in the aftermath of blood running in the streets.
Stop being so naive — this is happening NOW!
If you think any of this seems outlandish, you aren’t paying attention. The 16-page drone assassination memo has already been published. The NDAA is federal law. The DHS memos are real. All of us who question government, who own firearms, and who believe in the Bill of Rights havealready been named terrorists.
The stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people. That’s the reason DHS has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. It’s the reason DHS is buying 7,000 full-auto assault rifles. All these weapons and ammo are for exclusive use inside the United States of America, on U.S. soil.
This is why thousands of bulletproof roadside checkpoints have been purchased by DHS. It’s why steel cable dividers are being installed on highways, so that you can’t turn around when approaching a TSA checkpoint. This is why talk of shooting gun owners is openly tolerated and even encouraged in the mainstream media and on social networks.
We are witnessing a full-on ramping up toward total war with the American people. This war will be caused (false-flagged) by the government itself, and it will be waged on U.S. soil, using drone assassinations, nationwide gun confiscation, FEMA camps and of course a declaration of Martial Law to justify it all.
The end game is a complete takeover of America by socialist / communist / fascist forces and the outright abolition of liberties and firearms in the hands of citizens. America is scheduled for termination, and people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he can fool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popular resistance. Obama is seductive and hypnotic, so his followers will think he’s helping America even while he’s actually destroying it by design.
Drones are terminators in the sky, controlled by one man — a tyrant who sits in the Oval Office and respects no boundaries of either the Constitution or federal law. He makes law up as he goes along, betraying his oath of office and violating the very tenants of justice upon which this country was founded.
Obama is a traitor to America and a danger to us all. For the sake of America’s future, he must be impeached, thrown out of office and replaced with a President who actually upholds the Constitution and respects the laws of the land.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_…
http://www.infowars.com/it-has-happened-here/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition…
This article was posted: Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 6:02 am

Exposed: Obama's MUSLIM CONNECTIONS AND ROOTS...

In 1991 a young Muslim Harvard Law College graduate named Barack Hussein Obama (who has denied his Islamic past and Muslim roots for as long as he has been a public figure) became a civil rights community activist working out of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama worked as a community organizer for Trinity in poor black neighborhoods. Trinity's senior pastor Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, a black racist who preaches radical Afrocentric theology and doesn't mind delivering profanity-spiked sermons found a congregation-builder in Obama. Because of what Wright called Obama's multiple-faith background and his Harvard education, he was a natural community-builder.

hen Obama broke onto the national political scene in 2004, not only did he attempt to erase all traces his Islamic childhood, but he also tried to erase the nature of his relationship with Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ. (When your country is at war with Islamic extremists being a Muslim is not the shortest route to the White House.) Obama has told the media his reason for shielding his pastor was because "...he respected Mr. Wright's work for the poor and his fight against injustice." In reality Dr. Wright's work appears to be to denounce the United States as a white racist nation. That's not good press for an African American candidate who needs to win a majority of the white vote to win the office of President.
It would have been not only natural, but expected, for Barack Obama—when he decided to run for the presidency—to make the announcement from the pulpit of the 8,500 member Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama would later state he did not in order to shield his pastor from the spotlight of the media. Dr. Wright has never shunned positive publicity. It was obvious to the media—in particular the New York Times which noted in an April 20, 2007 article that Obama was very deliberately distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. Instead, Obama announced his candidacy on the steps of the old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois—where Abraham Lincoln announced his candidacy—on Feb. 10, 2007. Obama sees himself as an archtype of Lincoln who will "free his people from the tyranny of the oppressor." What people are those? The inner city people of color whom Dr. Wright believes are part of the Black Value System? Or does he see himself as the man who will free the Muslim world from the Great Satan since his first action, he says, as President of the United States will be to pull all Americans troops out of the Middle East? The voters need to figure out exactly who Barack Obama's constituents really are because when I add 2 + 2 + Obama, it doesn't come out four.
When Obama's early history and his Islamic upbringing was first reported, Obama's website posted a statement dated Nov. 12, 2007 with the headline: "Barack Obama is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim." The statement reiterated that Obama was not a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian. It's time to peel back the layers of history and look at Obama's family, beginning with his atheist mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
Dunham was born on Nov. 29, 1942 in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Her father, Stanley Armour Dunham, gave her his name. Her mother was Madelyn (Payne) Dunham. The family moved to Hawaii shortly after Ann's graduation from high school in Mercer island, Washington. Dunham's parents were actually Hawaiian citizens who migrated to the United States after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. While in high school, in the opening days of Vietnam, Dunham drifted to the radical leftist. Her mother described Stanley Ann as an "Adlai Stevenson liberal." In point of fact, she was a a typical 60's radical in the 1950s. Mercer island High School was the subject of an investigation by the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee when it was learned that the Communist Party, USA had infiltrated the school and several members of the faculty were Marxists. Two of Dunham's teachers, Jim Wichterman and Val Foubert, were active Marxists who brainwashed many of the students from Mercer Island High School before they were "outed."
She was an ardent atheist and she would debate atheism with anyone who wanted to challenge her views. Her best friend in high school, Maxine Box, said Dunham knew everything about atheism and would argue the point with anyone because she was "...always challenging and arguing and comparing."
From high school on, Dunham was attracted only to African American males and, according to one of her high school friends, Susan Blake, she never dated white boys. Once in Hawaii, Dunham enrolled in the University of Hawaii at Manoa where she studied cultural anthropology. At age 18 she met graduate student Barack Obama, from Kenya, in her Russian language class. They married on Feb. 2, 1961 in Maui. Six months later, on Aug. 4, 1961, their son, Barack Obama, Jr., was born. Two years later, Obama, Sr. left his wife and son to go to Boston to study at Harvard. The senior Obama received his Masters in Economic degree from Harvard in 1963 and returned to Kenya where his family's connections netted him a position in the Kenyan government. Two years later, when Obama, Jr. was 5, Stanley-Ann met and married Lolo Soetoro, the Wahabbi Muslim who would become the greater influence in Barack's life. Soetoro was an Indonesian Muslim who was an executive for an oil company. In 1967 the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia where Ann Dunham-Obama-Soetoro found a job teaching Indonesian staffers at the American embassy English. Dunham divorced Soetoro in the late 1970s. Obama, Sr. was killed in an car accident in 1982.
On Dec. 22, 2007 at the Smoky Row Coffee Shop in Oskaloosa, Iowa, the locals asked Candidate Obama about his Muslim roots. He said: "My father was from Kenya. A lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn't practice Islam. Truth is, he wasn't very religious." That was a lie. Obama's father and stepfather were devout Islamics. Both faithfully practiced their religion. His stepfather, who had a much greater impact on Obama's upbringing, was a radical Wahabbi Muslim. "My mother" he added, "was a Christian from Kansas." That was also a lie. Obama's mother, his material grandmother and grandfather were all atheists.
Stanley Armour and Madelyn Dunham were reportedly born into Baptist and Methodist families but neither of them had the "born again" experience. Stanely was the Baptist. Madelyn's parents were stern, by-the-book Methodists who didn't believe in drinking, playing cards or dancing. Nor did they believe in Stanley Armour Dunham. Madelyn secretly married Stanley during prom week in 1940, and kept the marriage a secret until after she graduated from high school.
Both of his grandparernts remained secular humanists through the rest of their lives. Nevertheless, on his resume, Barack Obama, Jr. continued to insist that he was raised as a practicing Christian solely to conceal his Muslim upbringing. The only church his maternal grandparents ever claimed membership in was a Marxist Unitarian Church in Bellevue, Washington before they returned to Hawaii. Their ties to that church were political, not theological. As you can see, Barack Obama, Jr.'s philosophical underpinnings were as a Marxist Muslim. And as you listen his political rhetoric, he has never wavered from the philosophical brainwashing of his youth.
"They married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian. The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country. But I've never practiced Islam...For a while I lived in Indonesia because my mother was teaching there. And that's a Muslim country. And I went to school—but I didn't practice Islam." When Obama's mother moved to Indonesia after her second Muslim marriage—she enrolled her son in Francis Assisis Catholic School. While he would attempt to use that fact to support his view that he was raised a Christian, he was enrolled as a Muslim because he was a Muslim. The enrollment form required each student to choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when enrolling: Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or Protestant. Had he been a lifelong Christian, or even a recent convert, he—or his mother—would have circled Protestant.
When confronted with this information, Obama said he couldn't understand how such an error could have happened. Los Angeles Times reporter Paul Watson, who dug into Obama's allegation of error, said "...his former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade school teacher as childhood friends, says Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. The registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion classes. The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque.." (Something else Obama claims he never did.) "...Obama's younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only 'for big communal events' not every Friday." (The family—i.e, all members of the family including Obama's atheist mother.)
Barack Obama, who still belongs to a church that teaches that the Muslims of the world were wronged by both Israel and the United States (even though Wright has stepped down from the pulpit and retired), cannot afford to be labeled as a "Muslim" by voters who expect the United States to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where their sons and daughters are being killed by Muslims anymore than he can afford to be labeled a "racist" by those who understand the theology of Dr. Jeremiah Wright's Christian church. Obama's new pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss III. preaches from the same racist pages as his predecessor. In his sermons, the Black race is as much a victim of white racism as they were Wright's sermons. And Moss is just as anti-American as Wright. All the Trinity United Church of Christ.did was place a new "dust cover" on Jeremiah Wright's playbook.
Jim Wallis, a Christian antipoverty community activist and a friend of Obama's said Obama comes from a very secular, skeptical family. His faith is a personal and adult choice. His maternal grandparents—who were professing atheists—had previously been Baptist and Methodist. His mother's tutelage leaned towards Islam only because her new husband was an ardent Muslim—and he demanded it. She was not, however, the docile Muslim housewife most Muslim men expected. Obama's half-sister Maya admitted that her "...whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." Because religion of any type rubbed his mother the wrong way, when he was 10, Obama's mother sent her son back to Hawaii to live with her parents. By saying that her whole family was Muslim, Maya was confirming that her step-brother, Barack, was also a Muslim.
In 2005 Obama met his paternal step-grandmother (whom he calls his grandmother). Sarah Hussein Obama, 85, lives in Kenya. She told the New York Times that she is "...a strong believer of Islamic faith," adding that she still rises at 5 a.m. to pray for an hour before tending to her crops and the three orphans she has taken in.
A camera which caught Obama on the political stage during a fund raiser for Sen. Tom Harkin in Iowa with presidential candidates Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton shows his lack of respect to this nation during the singing of the National Anthem. Angered that the photo was released (and because the reporter erroneously stated the photo was taken during the Pledge of Allegiance rather than the singing of the national anthem, Obama said: "This is the classic dirty trick. This was not the Pledge of Allegiance. The woman was singing the Star Spangled Banner."
As a sign of respect to their nation, many Americans place their hand over their heart when the National Anthem is played as well as when they recite the Pledge. In his case, Obama said "...I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hands over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. The Star Spangled Banner, you sing." Only, when you look at the photo, its very clear that neither Obama nor the others on stage are singing. It was, however, the singing of the national anthem. This statement also needs to be scrutinized.
All the time he was around either his father or stepfather, Obama was either in Hawaii or Indonesia. Thus, neither his paternal grandfather nor the father of his stepfather would have tutored him on placing his hand over his heart during the US Pledge of Allegiance, nor the singing the American Star Spangled Banner. Rest assured that Indonesian homes don't recite the Pledge or sing the US national anthem. And while Hawaii had been a State for three years before Obama was born, logic suggests its not likely an atheist mother and an Islamic father would teach him to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the Star Spangled Banner.
In his teen years Obama moved back to Honolulu where he lived with his maternal grandparents. In his rebuttal, you will recall, Obama claimed his grandfather had taught him to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge, and to sing the national anthem. History has a problem with that on both sides of the family. Like his mother who was an atheist, so were her parents. Obama's grandmother, he said in interviews, "...was too rational and too stubborn to accept anything she couldn't see, feel, touch or count." His maternal grandfather was also an atheist who "...had an innate rebelliousness and a complete inability to discipline his appetites...who...experimented with marijuana and cocaine." An atheist is not going to teach his grandson to respect the Pledge of Allegiance which pays homage to God.
In August, 2006 US Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] made a special trip to visit a special man in Kenya. The man's name was Raila Amolo Odinga. He is the head of the National Muslim Leaders Forum [NAMLEF] in Kenya. The political party he heads is called the Orange Democratic Movement [ODM]—although there is definitely nothing democratic about his political party of NAMLEF. The ODM is dedicated to overthrowing the legitimate democratic government of Kenya. Odinga is not really concerned how he achieves his objective. It matters little to him if he assumes power through a free election—or by revolution. But, by hook or crook, he is determined to become the president of Kenya. If he succeeds, he will be president for life and Kenya will become another Afghanistan.
When the US Senator visited Kenya to meet with Odinga in Nairobi, the Kenyan government officially denounced the visit. And, most specifically, they denounced Obama. According to a Kenyan government spokesman, Obama's bias for his friend was so blatant that the government found it necessary to complain that Obama appeared to be Odinga's stooge. Not only did Obama campaign for his Islamic friend, he convinced former Clinton adviser Dick Morris to become Odinga's campaign adviser. From his own personal wealth, Obama contributed close to a million dollars to Odinga's campaign.
Odinga bothers the US State Department for a couple of reasons. First, after losing the democratic election on December 27, Raila Odinga cut a deal for support from Vladimir Putin and the former Soviet Union. Odinga knows he has to overthrow the government to gain power. When he lost the election, he protested that the vote was rigged to keep him from claiming an election he won. He incited tribal followers to go on a murderous rampage in towns that were primarily Christian. Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people were murdered in what the African bloggers reported appeared like "ethnic cleansing." . What shocked the west is that the Kenyan media—and the political power brokers within the country—out of fear of Odinga, appear to suggest that perhaps the election should be held over to stop the violence and the potential for long term Muslim terrorism. Reuters, CNN and BBC reported on the violence, stating that "...the violence..." which escalated rapidly "...has taken a very ugly turn toward ethnic cleansing and mob rule., especially in the Rift Valley region."
In a wave of violence aimed at protesting what they call the illegal election of newly-elected Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, a group of Christian women and children—some entire families—barricaded themselves in a church in Eldoret, Kenya. Muslim mobs, inflamed by Odinga, torched the church and burned to death everyone inside. This is the man Obama campaigned for in Kenya, and sang the praises of. This is also the man who claims that Barack Obama is a close, personal friend—and his cousin. One of Odinga's followers in Kenya claimed to me by email that Odinga was Obama's cousin—and a Christian like Obama. What Odinga meant was that Obama was his cousin in a figurative, rather than biological, sense. The Odinga supporter also claimed that Odinga had no intention of implementing Sharia Law in the nation if he won. That was also not true or, if by some thread of a chance, it is, it would a dangerously stupid thing for a man who is not a Muslim, to promise and then not do.
Odinga pledged, in a signed oath, that Christianity would be outlawed in Kenya—or at least, greatly restricted. There would a complete ban on the public consumption of alcoholic beverages and a ban on western-style dress for women since this type of garb is considered immoral and an offense to the Muslim faith. Raila Odinga, it seems, would impose the same type of Shariah law that was imposed on Afghanistan by the Taliban. Odinga would degree that no Muslim living in Kenya—whether a citizen, visitor or relative of a citizen of Kenya (such as Obama, whose grandmother is a citizen of Kenya)‚shall be subject to any legal process involving the laws of a foreign country and in particular any Muslim arrested for, or suspected of, terrorism, or of any other international crimes shall only be tried inside the borders of Kenya and shall be granted a competent lawyer of his or her choice at the expense of the government.
The American people need to be asking Barack Obama a whole different list of questions when they attend his political rallies on his quest to become the leader of the free world. They need to ask the man who he really is because, up to this point on the campaign trail, he has lied to them. The American people need to find an honest candidate. Barack Obama is not that man.