January 21, 2009

Andy Rooney On 60 Minutes Talks About Implanted Microchips "Mark of the beast"

Supreme Court Revokes 4th Amendment And Jury Trials For Long Prison Sentences

The high court rules in a 5-4 opinion that evidence from an illegal search can be used if an officer makes an innocent mistake.
By David G. Savage
January 15, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court pulled back on the "exclusionary rule" Wednesday and ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if a police officer made an innocent mistake.

The 5-4 opinion signals that the court is ready to rethink this key rule in criminal law and restrict its reach. It will also give prosecutors and judges nationwide more leeway to make use of evidence that may have been seen as questionable before.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the guilty should not "go free" just because a computer error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.

He said good evidence, even if obtained in a bad search, can be used against a suspect unless the police deliberately or recklessly violated his rights.

The exclusionary rule was applied to state and local police in 1961, and its aim was to deter officers from conducting unconstitutional searches of homes, cars and pedestrians. Usually, it means that illegally seized evidence must be excluded.

But in Wednesday's opinion, Roberts said that "the benefits . . . must outweigh the costs." And there is nothing to be gained, he said, by throwing out evidence when officers make honest mistakes.

The ruling upheld the drug and gun charges against an Alabama man who was stopped by a sheriff's department officer who had been told -- erroneously -- there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

The officer, Mark Anderson, had called and been told by a clerk in a neighboring county that Bennie Dean Herring had failed to appear in court on a felony charge. But minutes after Anderson found methamphetamine and a pistol in Herring's car, the clerk called back to say the arrest warrant had been withdrawn. This fact had not been entered into the sheriff's department's computer.

Roberts said the mistake here was a "negligent bookkeeping error." It did not reflect an officer's deliberate decision to violate the rights of the motorist, he said.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the chief justice.

The dissenters said the exclusionary rule should be strictly enforced. "Electronic databases form the nervous system of contemporary criminal justice operations," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. "The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database."

The exclusionary rule has long been controversial. It was imposed on federal courts in 1914 to deter violations of the 4th Amendment and its ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures."

In the 1980s, the court retreated somewhat and said there was a "good faith exception" for officers who conduct searches with warrants they believe are valid. In 1995, it said that if the judicial system makes an error that leads to a wrongful arrest, the evidence need not be suppressed.

The new ruling, in Herring vs. United States, goes a step further and allows the use of illegally obtained evidence even when the mistake arises from the law enforcement agency.

John Wesley Hall, the president of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the ruling would "reward sloppy police work. They should call it the 'Barney Fife' exception to the 4th Amendment," an allusion to the TV lawman played by Don Knotts.

In a second decision, the court said judges may impose long consecutive sentences for criminals who are convicted of several crimes and without consulting the jury.

The court has said juries, not judges, need to decide the key issues that result in a long prison term.

But in a 5-4 ruling, the court said it would leave it to judges to decide whether a criminal should serve extra time for each violation.

January 20, 2009

Georgia Guidestones Defaced Christians Fight Back

December 11, 2008













From the Radio Liberty website:

On one of the highest hilltops in Elbert County, Georgia stands a huge granite monument. Engraved in eight different languages on the four giant stones that support the common capstone are 10 Guides, or commandments. That monument is alternately referred to as The Georgia Guidestones, or the American Stonehenge. Though relatively unknown to most people, it is an important link to the Occult Hierarchy that dominates the world in which we live.

The origin of that strange monument is shrouded in mystery because no one knows the true identity of the man, or men, who commissioned its construction. All that is known for certain is that in June 1979, a well-dressed, articulate stranger visited the office of the Elberton Granite Finishing Company and announced that he wanted to build an edifice to transmit a message to mankind. He identified himself as R. C. Christian, but it soon became apparent that was not his real name. He said that he represented a group of men who wanted to offer direction to humanity, but to date, almost two decades later, no one knows who R. C. Christian really was, or the names of those he represented. Several things are apparent. The messages engraved on the Georgia Guidestones deal with four major fields: (1) Governance and the establishment of a world government, (2) Population and reproduction control, (3) The environment and man’s relationship to nature, and (4) Spirituality.

In the public library in Elberton, I found a book written by the man who called himself R.C. Christian. I discovered that the monument he commissioned had been erected in recognition of Thomas Paine and the occult philosophy he espoused. Indeed, the Georgia Guidestones are used for occult ceremonies and mystic celebrations to this very day. Tragically, only one religious leader in the area had the courage to speak out against the American Stonehenge, and he has recently relocated his ministry.


1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

Limiting the population of the earth to 500 million will require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world’s people. The American Stonehenge’s reference to establishing a world court foreshadows the current move to create an International Criminal Court and a world government. The Guidestones’ emphasis on preserving nature anticipates the environmental movement of the 1990s, and the reference to “seeking harmony with the infinite” reflects the current effort to replace Judeo-Christian beliefs with a new spirituality.

  • The message of the American Stonehenge also foreshadowed the current drive for Sustainable Development. Any time you hear the phrase “Sustainable Development” used, you should substitute the term “socialism” to be able to understand what is intended. Later in this syllabus you will read the full text of the Earth Charter which was compiled under the direction of Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong. In that document you will find an emphasis on the same basic issues: control of reproduction, world governance, the importance of nature and the environment, and a new spirituality. The similarity between the ideas engraved on the Georgia Guidestones and those espoused in the Earth Charter reflect the common origins of both.

Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, was recently quoted as referring to the American Stonehenge, saying:

“I want people to know about the stones … We’re headed toward a world where we might blow ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist … it’s a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Stones symbolize that. ” (1)

What is the true significance of the American Stonehenge, and why is its covert message important? Because it confirms the fact that there was a covert group intent on

(1) Dramatically reducing the population of the world.
(2) Promoting environmentalism.
(3) Establishing a world government.
(4) Promoting a new spirituality.

Certainly the group that commissioned the Georgia Guidestones is one of many similar groups working together toward a New World Order, a new world economic system, and a new world spirituality. Behind those groups, however, are dark spiritual forces. Without understanding the nature of those dark forces it is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events.

The fact that most Americans have never heard of the Georgia Guidestones or their message to humanity reflects the degree of control that exists today over what the American people think. We ignore that message at our peril.

The Occult Newsweek Magazine Cover Of Barack Obama

Michael Difensore

The Newsweek magazine cover called "The New Global Elite" has a occult image on it. Look closely at the image as a whole and you can make out a owl with Obama serving as the beek. I'm not sure if the image is portraying a owl or not. But one thing is clear its not normal and is evil looking. Clcik on image to view a larger picture.

January 9, 2009

Walter Cronkite In Favor Of World Government Says "If World Government Is Of The Devil I'm Glad To Sit Here At The Right Hand Of Satan"

Henry Lamb
Enter Stage Right
December 13, 1999

There was not a blip on the main-stream news media radar when Hillary Clinton introduced Walter Cronkite to the World Federalist Association (WFA) on October 19. Not until the Washington Times reprinted the Cronkite speech Friday, December 3, did Americans discover that both Hillary and Walter are avid advocates of world government.

Cronkite says “democracy, civilization itself, is at stake,” unless the “basic structure of our global community” is changed in the next few years. Cronkite’s appeal for world government came only five days before the release of the Charter for Global Democracy which embodies the version of world government preferred by the United Nations Association (UNA).

Both the UNA and the WFA have been promoting world government for years. Cronkite’s group, the WFA, prefers a “federalist” system which would create a weighted system of voting in the U.N. General Assembly to create a legislative body roughly akin to the American Congress. The UNA prefers a “consensus” process that takes into account recommendations offered by civil society (non-government organizations accredited by the U.N.).

Both organizations want to elevate the U.N. to world government status and empower the U.N. to enforce all international law. In fact, in 1986, the WFA filed suit against the United States over U.S. foreign policy, arguing that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution made the U.N. Charter as well as other U.N. treaties, the “supreme law of the land.” The courts ruled against the WFA in 1989.

Hillary’s presence at the WFA meeting, and her introduction of Cronkite, directly aligns her with the world government movement, and particularly with the WFA’s world government aspirations.

Cronkite called for the “revision” and limitation of the veto power of permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The Commission on Global Governance and the Charter for Global Democracy, call for the elimination of both the veto and permanent member status on the Security Council. This latter recommendation will be presented as the needed “reform” to the Millennium Assembly next September. Cronkite’s more timid approach, as well as his “federalism” ideas have been overwhelmed by the U.N.’s “consensus” process now on a fast track toward adoption.

Cronkite called for the immediate ratification of a laundry list of U.N. treaties, including the infamous Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and “most important,” Cronkite says, the International Criminal Court, which empowers the U.N. to prosecute American citizens whether or not it is ratified by the Senate.

Hillary made her support for these positions clear when she attended the U.N. Beijing Conference on Women in 1995.

Cronkite said in order to achieve world government, “Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty.” He said “the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy.”

Under the world government scheme embodied in the Charter for Global Democracy, any individual nation could wield only the power assigned to it by the U.N. National armies would be disarmed to the level of a national police force. The U.N. would maintain a “directly recruited” standing army under the direct authority of the U.N. Secretary-General. Private citizens would be disarmed, and the U.N. would control the manufacture, sale, licensing and distribution of all fire arms.

To finance this expanded world government, the U.N. would be given the authority to impose taxes on the exchange of currency, on the use of resources, including the air, outer space, and the seas. Taxing authority is seen not only as the source of unlimited revenue, but also as a way to force a reduction of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, water, trees, and minerals.

Like the Clinton administration, and other world government advocates, Cronkite demeans opponents. He says that like America’s rejection of the League of Nations, current opposition to world government is “led by a handful of willful Senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience.”

He goes even further to single out the “Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing” as the culprits who have kept the world in a state of sovereign anarchy and prevented the emergence of a “civilized force of law” administered by the United Nations.

The fact that people of the stature of Hillary Clinton and Walter Cronkite are now willing to publicly advocate world government is an indication of their confidence that the world is now ready to accept their plan. World government is no longer the exclusive domain of the “black helicopter crowd.” Finally, the sinister plans to rule the world are being exposed by those who expect to rule.

The time line is, indeed, short. After decades of silent and denied preparation, the United Nations has made public the millennium year agenda which is crowned by the largest gathering of heads of state in the history of the world next September.

World government, called “global governance” by the U.N., will not occur on a day certain. It is a process that has been underway for years. The Millennium Assembly and Summit next September, with the adoption of the Charter for Global Democracy, is seen to be the point from which there is no turning back.

The only way to stop world government at this late date, is for the American people to send a government to Washington in the next election that can muster the courage to just say no.