THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, IS FALLING! 

THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, IS FALLING!

March 15, 2018

 

 

More and more I hear our country being called a Democracy! That word is thrown around so much, especially these days in an attempt to delude the public into believing that words don’t matter–“Semantics” they will say.

Kids in school are being taught that the majority rules and that our country is a Democracy. Hillary Clinton, while running for President, insisted that our country was a Democracy–over and over again. Many politicians spew the term as if by saying it, it becomes true. And, right now, I am beginning to believe that we have lost our Republic to the Democracy ideologies and very few are even questioning it. Our Constitution has little merit these days as we are seeing high school kids being orchestrated to over-run the very fabric or our Constitution by mob-rule. We are witnessing College administrators encouraging mayhem to attack our very precious right of Free Speach by twisting the very same amendment to achieve their goals to shut down those they disagree with. We see State Governments brazenly harboring criminals while others are directly aiding and abetting illegals to interfere with our Constitutional voting process, which is a direct violation of our US Constitution. But, let Democracy rule and it will until it cripples and crumbles our country.

While I was searching for a good commentary on the differences between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic, I found hundreds that would do, however, the one I have posted is from one of the most LIBERAL outlets around and I chose that one so that NO ONE can accuse me of being narrow-minded in my conservatism. Even those who are media-driven to change what we have will certainly, at some point or another, slip on the ice and throw the Truth in the air.

Here I present, The Huffington Post!

The Blog 12/11/2014 By Diane Dimond

“Following my recent column about racial tensions in America I got an email from Gary L. Hoe, of Albuquerque, which made me re-think what our founding fathers had in mind when they established this country. Hoe reminded me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin, attributed to the statesman as he left the secret confab which hammered out the U.S. Constitution. Asked by a woman what kind of government had been decided upon — a republic or a monarchy — Franklin replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” Somewhere in the 227 years since then many Americans have adopted the idea that we are a democracy not a republic. Nothing could be further from the intent expressed at that Constitutional Convention in 1787. Have today’s history teachers been remiss in their lessons or has some sinister power oozed into our consciousness to make us believe we are something we were never destined to be? James Madison, often called “the father of the Constitution” wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” Other writings from the time are full of warnings about how dire a democracy can be on the population, how democracies will, ultimately, cause a nation to crumble. In the early 1800s, John Marshall, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” You won’t find the word “democracy” in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America was established as a Republic — period. So, what’s the difference between a republic and a democracy? Glad you asked because it is so important to today’s debate about social equality and government involvement in our lives. A republic is guided by an overarching set of laws — a charter or constitution — which, in our country’s case, explicitly guarantees the individual’s rights against the desires of the majority. Each of us has the indisputable right to think, worship and vote anyway we want.

A true democracy, on the other hand, (stay with me on this) allows the majority to rule and to disregard the desires of any individual who doesn’t agree with them. Think of a democracy like this: If the majority of your neighbors voted to paint all houses bright purple you would be forced to follow suit. Okay with you? While today’s school kids are often being taught that “majority rule” is the fairest form of government — I think it’s quite the opposite. It destroys individualism and can foster a pack-thought mentality.

It seems that today many citizens operate under the mistaken idea that if they and a majority of their peers want something it should automatically be accepted by all. A government handout, a guilty verdict in spite of a jury’s decision or unfettered citizenship. Is anyone truly surprised that we have come to a place of such fractiousness and intolerance in this country? Has anyone failed to notice the pervasive and dangerous trend afloat that declares: If others don’t think as we do they must be stupid or, even worse, eliminated? When we left behind the idea that this country is a republic we somehow embraced the idea that cookie-cutter thought trumps all. If Ben Franklin were still with us I think he would step forward to remind that America was ordained to live as a united, law abiding country, tolerant of each other’s differences and content to change laws via an orderly and legal process — not mob rule.

Back to my reader, Mr. Hoe, who believes there is danger in ignoring the destructiveness of all this divisiveness. He interprets Franklin’s long-ago comment this way: “He was saying …our form of government works only if those being governed behave themselves as though they don’t need a government to keep them in line.” From Washington to the heartland, we are not behaving well. We’ve become a selfish and myopic melting pot on many levels, working against each other toward narrow goals and not the common good.

Wonder if in 2015 there will be a leader who can get us back to the idea of pledging allegiance to “The United States of America and to the republic for which it stands?”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/a-republic-or-a-democracy_b_6306120.html

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and featured writer

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 

The sky is falling…THE SKY IS FALLING! 13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970 

The sky is falling…THE SKY IS FALLING! 13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

September 6, 2015

 

The people of the 1970s were a fun bunch!  I remember this era so well.  Disco’s, drugs and very little discipline!  As a teenager, I was pretty much worried about Russia bombing us, the coming ice age and all the food on our planet running out.  The ’70s are so reminiscent of our current era, except now we are all going to burn up and all the ice is going to melt and WE ALL ALL STILL GOING TO DIE! 

 

Here are the top 13 worst predictions claimed on Earth Day, 1970:

 

  • “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
  • “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  • “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
  • “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  • “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
  • “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  • “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  • “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
  • “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  • “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
  • “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  • “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
  • “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 The Slavery Myths Debunked! 

The Slavery Myths Debunked!

April 7, 2012

I always want to keep people informed about political issues.  Now I put this piece together almost a decade ago, but it still holds true today–even more so.  We have become a nation divided!  A nation that is more racial than it has been in the last 20 years.  Just as we, as a country were moving forward we have seen Racists bigots like Jackson, Sharpton, and mostly our current President, propel us into a race war.

The information below is something that is not taught in our school system but certainly should be.  It is time the truth be told!

The Truth About Slavery from the American Dissident Voices…

 

The history of America and of Western Civilization is not being taught as it should be in our schools and universities today. Historical facts are suppressed, and what is taught is distorted in such a way as to advance the world government agenda, with all inconvenient historical facts, knowledge of which might cause our young people to question that agenda, purposely left out.

    It is a tragedy of monumental proportions that our schools have been converted into “liberal” brainwashing institutions, though I do feel a sense of encouragement when I read that more and more real Americans are taking their children out of the public schools and teaching them at home. As regular listeners to this program know, the global elite that pushes multiculturalism to push it because it undermines our national and racial sense of identity, and not out of any love or concern for ethnic minorities. In fact, it should be obvious to everyone that multiculturalism and globalism threaten the racial and cultural integrity of all peoples, not just White Americans. Nevertheless, because America is, or was until recently, a predominantly White nation, one of the primary ways that national disintegration is promoted by the destroyers of nations in this country is by the inculcation of White guilt for Black slavery.

    By recounting and emphasizing, again and again, the real and imagined sufferings of Black people under slavery, the White student is made to feel that his ancestors were cruel, morally retarded, and evil. They are made to feel that they owe Black people a nearly infinite compensation, since, they are taught, Black people’s problems today are the legacy of hundreds of years of slavery for which White people are responsible. They are taught that the relative prosperity which we enjoy today was achieved largely by the exploitation of Black slaves. Is it any wonder that thousands of our young people join Jesse Jackson in chanting “Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Culture’s Gotta Go”? Is it any wonder that they all too often reject our European cultural heritage and embrace all forms of alien styles of music, dancing, dress, grooming, and slang, from Jamaican “rasta” to “gangsta rap”? Is it any wonder that White teenagers are committing suicide in higher numbers every year? They have received, in our public schools and colleges, not a “liberal education,” but an education by liberals. They have been taught very well indeed -taught that they and their ancestors and their traditions and their natural feelings are worthless and an obstacle to be overcome.

    Now, these liberal lies are easily countered by facts. The primary fact that must be emphasized is that many hundreds of thousands of White people were slaves in early America. In fact, White slavery was not only extremely common but until the late 18th century it was far more common than Black slavery here. Also little known is the fact that living and labor conditions for Black slaves, bad as they often were, were usually far better than those for White slaves.

    At this point, many of you are probably saying “White slaves? What in the world is he talking about? Sure, there were White indentured servants and apprentices in colonial America, and maybe sometimes they were treated badly, but actual White slavery – that’s something that disappeared with the Romans and the Vikings. And to compare White indentured servants to Black slaves is the worst sort of racist distortion of history!”

    Some of you are probably saying or thinking exactly that, and quite frankly to most of us the idea of White slavery in early America is hard to accept, schooled as we are by the controlled media and the liberal-dominated public schools. But researcher and writer Michael Hoffman has recently come out with one of the most earth-shaking works of historical research in the last decade, entitled They Were White and They Were Slaves. This program is based on Mr. Hoffman’s original research into documents long hidden from the public eye and revealing a very different America from that presented in the controlled media.

 

    (Following from They Were White and They Were Slaves)

 

    There is a history of White people that has never been told in any coherent form, largely because most modern historians have, for reasons of politics or psychology, refused to recognize White slaves in America as just that.

    Today, not a tear is shed for the sufferings of millions of our enslaved forefathers. 200 years of White slavery in America have been almost completely obliterated from the collective memory of the American people. Writer Elaine Kendall asks “Who wants to be reminded that half – perhaps as many as two-thirds – of the original American colonists came here, not of their own free will, but kidnapped, shanghaied, impressed, duped, beguiled, and yes, in chains – ?…we tend to gloss over it… we’d prefer to forget the whole sorry chapter.”

    A correct understanding of the authentic history of the enslavement of Whites in America could have profound consequences for the future. Most of the books on White labor in early America use words like “White indentured servitude,” “White bondservants,” White servants,” etc. Few are now aware that the majority of these so-called “servants” were bound to a condition more properly called permanent chattel slavery unto death. The papers legally allowing the enslavement, called indentures, were often forged by kidnappers and press-gangs; and in cases where these papers did not literally specify a life term of servitude, the slave-owner had the legal right to unilaterally increase the length of the term on the flimsiest pretexts. The so-called “apprentices” or “indentured servants” had no say in the matter. These enslaved White people are, however, never called slaves by establishment academics and media spokesmen. To do so would destroy the myth of unique Black victimhood and universal White guilt.

    Today, with the massive concentration of educational and media resources on the Black experience of slavery, the unspoken assumption has been that only Blacks have been enslaved to any degree or magnitude worthy of study or memorial. The historical record reveals that this is not the case, however. The word “slave” itself is derived from the word “slave,” a reference to the Eastern European White people who, among others, were enslaved by their fellow Whites, by the Mongols, and by the Arabs over a period of many centuries.

    According to Thomas Burton’s Parliamentary Diary 1656-1659, in 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. In the debate, these Whites were referred to not as “indentured servants” but as “slaves.”

    In the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies of 1701, we read of a protest over the “encouragement to the spiriting away of Englishmen without their consent and selling them for slaves, which hath been a practice very frequent and known by the name of kidnapping.” In the British West Indies, plantation slavery was instituted as early as 1627. In Barbados by the 1640s, there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were White.

    This document records that while White slaves were worked to death, as they cost next to nothing, there were Caribbean Indians brought from Guiana to help propagate native foodstuffs who were well-treated and received as free persons by the wealthy planters.

    The Englishman William Eddis, after observing White slaves in America in the 1770s wrote: “Generally speaking, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage.” Governor Sharpe of the Maryland colony compared the property interest of the planters in their White slaves, with the estate of an English farmer consisting of a “Multitude of Cattle.”

    Lay historian Col. A. B. Ellis, writing in the British Newspaper Argosy for May 6, 1893, said: “Few, but readers of old colonial state papers and records, are aware that between the years 1649 to 1690 a lively trade was carried on between England and the plantations, as the colonies were then called, [a trade] in political prisoners… they were sold at auction… for various terms of years, sometimes for life, as slaves.”

    Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia referred to bound Whites assigned to the treasurer’s office to “belong to said office forever.” The service of Whites bound to Berkeley’s Hundred was deemed “perpetual.”

    Numerous documents from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and even nineteenth centuries reveal that these Whites in bondage certainly referred to themselves as slaves, and there are even records of Blacks referring to them as “White slaves.” Did you know that the expression “kidnapping,” (originally kid-nabbing) had its origin in the abduction of poor White children to be sold into factory slavery in Britain or plantation slavery in America? Did you know that the expression “spirited away” likewise originated with the White slavers, who were also called “spirits”?

    The White slavery in America was but an extension of the White slavery in the mother country, Britain, where the legal form of contracted indentured servitude and apprenticeship was maintained as a spurious cover for plain and simple lifetime chattel slavery. Particularly shocking was the enslavement of White children for factory labor. Children were openly seized from orphanages and workhouses and placed in the factories.

    In Brian Inglis’ Poverty and the Industrial Revolution, we read: “Here then was a ready source of labor – and a very welcome one. The children were formally indentured as apprentices… What happened to them was nobody’s concern. A parish in London, having got rid of a batch of unwanted pauper children, was unlikely to interest itself in their subsequent fate… The term ‘apprenticeship’ was, in any case, a misnomer….”

    In Marjorie Cruikshank’s Children and Industry: “many employers imported child apprentices, parish orphans from workhouses far and near. Clearly, overseers of the poor were only too keen to get rid of the orphans… children were brought (to the factories) like ‘cartloads of live lumber’ and abandoned to their fate… poor children, taken from workhouses or kidnapped in the streets of the metropolis, used to be brought down by… coach to Manchester and slid into a cellar in Mosley Street as if they had been stones or any other inanimate substance.”

    White children worked up to sixteen hours a day and during that period the doors were locked. Children – and most of the mill workers were children – were allowed out only to ‘go to the necessary.’ In some factories, it was forbidden to open the windows… The child ‘apprentices’ who were on night shift might have to stay on it for as long as four or five years. They were lucky if they were given a halfpenny an hour.

    This was labor without any breaks – unceasing labor. When the children fell asleep at the machines, they were lashed into wakefulness with a whip. If they arrived late to the factory, talked to another child, or committed some other infraction they were beaten with an iron bar known as a “billy-roller,” eight feet long and one inch and a half in diameter. Many were thus murdered, often for trifling offenses such as calling out names to the next child.

    Thousands of children were mangled or mutilated by the primitive factory machinery every year. They were often disfigured or disabled for life, then abandoned, receiving no compensation of any kind. Similar conditions obtained for enslaved White children on this side of the Atlantic, as what William Blake called “these Satanic Mills” spread to our shores.

    Historian Oscar Handlin writes that in colonial America, White servants could be bartered for a profit, sold to the highest bidder for the unpaid debts of their masters, and otherwise transferred like moveable goods or chattels…

    The controlled media focus exclusively on the enslavement of Blacks. The impression is given that only Whites bear responsibility for enslaving Blacks and that only Blacks were slaves. In fact, Blacks in Africa engaged in extensive enslavement of their own kind. Slavery was endemic in Africa, with entire tribes being enslaved through conquest on a regular basis. When Arabic, Jewish and White slave traders arrived on the coast of sub-Saharan Africa, they seldom if ever had to travel inland and fight or pursue their quarry. They were met on the coast by Africans more than willing to sell slaves to them by the thousands. And in America, records show that Black slaves were owned, not just by a few wealthy Whites, but by free Blacks and by Cherokee Indians. In some cases, these Blacks and Indians even owned White slaves.

    White slaves were actually owned by Blacks and Indians in the South to such an extent that the Virginia Assembly passed the following law in 1670: “It is enacted that no negro or Indian though baptized and enjoying their own freedom shall be capable of any such purchase of Christians.” The records of the time reveal that free Blacks often owned Black slaves themselves. In 1717, it was proposed that a qualification for election to the South Carolina Assembly was to be “the ownership of one White man.”

    From 1609 until the early 1800s, between one half and two-thirds of all the White colonists who came to the New World came as slaves. White slaves cleared the forests, drained the swamps, built the roads, sweated in the fields, and died like flies in hellish factories. Owned like property, they had no rights nor recourse to the law. Fugitive slave laws applied to them just as to Blacks if they should flee their masters. Black slaves were expensive, and though at times cruelly used, were not often used beyond the limits of human endurance. That would have been a waste of a costly investment. White slaves, however, consisting of the poor and unwanted “surplus population” of Britain, were available for nearly nothing, just a few pence for a thug to billy club them and shanghai them aboard a westward-bound vessel. Thus they were expendable.

    Both psychologically and materially Whites in modern times are called upon to bear burdens of guilt and monetary reparation for Black slavery. This position is based entirely on enforced ignorance and the deliberate suppression of the record of White slavery in North America.

    Reparations? Welfare and affirmative action as compensation for past slavery? Leaving aside for the moment the very questionable idea of punishing the great-grandson for the sins of the great-grandfather, let us consider the principles involved. Far more Whites in America are descendants of White slaves than are descendants of slave owners. And considering the endemic nature of slavery in Black Africa, it is quite likely that a large proportion of Blacks in America have ancestors who were themselves, slave owners. So let us hear no more of White guilt and endless payments and “affirmative action” to atone for the sin of the enslavement of Blacks. These endless payments themselves are a form of slavery. For the good of all races and peoples, let us rid ourselves of slavery for all time.

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured Writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

The Tariff Slave Trade 

The Tariff Slave Trade

July 9, 2018

 

 

VIDEO HERE  https://youtu.be/3mBPzXV0Qw0

I believe the major issue here is that most people don’t understand what a tariff is. Moreover, they have absolutely NO CLUE as to what a Trade surplus or a Trade deficit is.

A tariff, simply put, is a tax placed on an imported good. For instance, theoretically, when a country such as Germany or China sends their cars here to be sold, a reasonable and fair tax or tariff is placed on that vehicle. These taxes are not anything new and as a matter of fact, prior to 1913, the U.S. government raised most of its revenue from tariffs. That’s right, this is how our railroads were built, roads, bridges and the very basic infrastructure of our country. We didn’t have income tax back then! GASP!

The main reason for tariffs was to protect our economy from countries that used cheap or slave labor to send goods to our country and compete with our National goods and production. This holds true for all countries that impose a tariff. The civil war had its roots steeped in this ideology…it wasn’t simply about freeing the slaves. It was also an economic war. The Democrats really didn’t want to give up their FREE LABORERS as they sold their cotton and produce to the North making huge profits. The North, on the other hand, was experiencing European immigrants flooding in that needed work and money. The economic scales were tipped to the South with free labor, cheap land and an abundance of profit. However, as sweet as that story sounds, the reality was that the South was being exploited with High Tariff’s, while the North was actually benefitting…the South was being hit hard with tariffs and the North was making the profits. Revisionist history has just about wiped all these facts, and it was all about tariffs! Learn more about what really caused the civil war here: http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Ok, back to the issue at hand. Do tariffs make imported items more expensive to us in the US? Well, we can look at it this way. Did Walmart put many small, local businesses out of business? Yes, they certainly did! It’s really the same concept. The same goes for HomeDepot and Lowes and other big conglomerates. When I was younger, I don’t remember my parents complaining about the price of the local Agway feed store, and I never had issues with the prices at our local hardware store here in CDA–Ernst…as a matter of fact I miss that store. But because the US doesn’t charge places like China and Japan a realistic and fair (to the US) tariff, they can send cheap products here and we quickly forget about the little local stores we all patronized. And, we not only grew accustomed to these less expensive products, we also got used to the inferiority! “Cheap Chinese crap!” We have all muttered that under our breath when something we own breaks. We are now a disposable society.

And if we are talking about one thing we export a lot of, it’s cars. Cars being shipped from the U.S. into Europe face a 10 percent import duty while European cars into the U.S. faced a 2.5 percent import duty. So that means that people in Europe are more likely to buy a German vehicle because the 10% tariff we have to pay, increases the cost of that car. Oh, but have you ever wondered why you can pick up an Asian vehicle so much cheaper than a Ford, Dodge, or a GM vehicle? A car imported to the United States from China faces a Tariff of 2.5%, while a car is sent to China from the United States, the Tariff is 25%! If China had to pay 25% to export its cars to the US, then, well, obviously they won’t be a dirt-cheap as they are now! And maybe there wouldn’t be so many stupid Subaru drivers, putting around like grannies, clogging up our roads.

So, in a nutshell, a trade deficit (losing money) occurs when people demand cheap, inferior products at discount price from places like China and Japan and don’t buy locally–in their own country and when, as is occurring to the US and has since the 1970s, our products are being overtaxed in tariff’s from other countries, therefore making them more of a luxury item, instead of an everyday item. It’s difficult to make money when an export tax is beyond reasonable. A surplus is the exact opposite…when our exports exceed our imports; when people demand American made products because they are quality made and affordable to foreign countries, we will export more with fair and reasonable tariffs.

Now, if the playing field on tariffs becomes equal, because…equality and all, then the prices of goods imported here will either go up, if we drastically increase the tariff on other countries imported products, or stay the same if those countries lower our outrageously high tariff’s the US pays to export to their country. Either way, we’re not picking cotton anymore!

 

 

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

The Tiniest of Slaves 

The Tiniest of Slaves

September 6, 2015

 

 

 Someone recently made a comment that caused me to stop and really ponder their statement.  It was regarding abortion.  They likened the mentality of those who abort their children as slave masters.  Women proclaim; “Their bodies to do with what they want!”  So what is really being said here is that the baby growing inside them is their property and they hold ownership over that being.  Doesn’t that sound exactly like slavery?  There was a time when a slave was not considered a human, with no rights…something to be used bought, sold or disposed of if needed.

 

Let’s now make that comparison with the ideologies of those who are Pro-abortion to the same ideologies some who believed that slaves were subhuman, property and chattel–owned by their masters.  A woman who is pro-abortion will spew the argument that her body belongs to her and anything growing inside her body also belongs to her. She will claim that it is her RIGHT to do with her body and all its contents as she deems fit (although I believe selling body parts and suicide is still illegal, but if you’re dead you’re dead right!)  Her growing baby is not considered a human and has no rights while to belongs to her body…her body HER RIGHTS!  This mother can elect to have her child forcibly removed from her body, thus ending the life of her baby.  Because of her belief that this child is not really a child, not human, without feelings, rights or legal protection like a slave, the abortion process involves cutting the fetus into pieces, or burning it with a heavy salt solution or even partially birthing her non-human with moving arms, legs and wiggling torso and then having a Doctor cut its little spinal cord, crush its skull and pull the lifeless body out. 

 

If she is a moral and conscientious woman she will be kind to this growing child and do everything in her power to make sure he or she has everything it needs to finish growing and that once it is born this baby takes on its own unalienable rights.  At some point, this woman may come to realize that she is unable to care for this child and will decide to give the baby a good life by letting another adopt him or her.  And other women of this same fortitude will raise their own children..some will be excellent mothers and others will not. However, the child that is born is no longer without rights and is certainly considered human and its own person, protected under the law. 

 

 Now how does this and slavery come together?  When you think you own something and that is exactly what slaves were, PROPERTY, you feel entitled to do with it as you desire.  In some people’s minds (not all, however) slaves were not considered anything but something owned…my slave, my choice!  A slave could be killed without anyone blinking an eye…some considered them un-human, just property.  There were many slave owners who were kind and compassionate to their slaves and treated them as part of the family.  These owners understood that even though they owned these people they believed they were still responsible for their health and welfare. 

 

 

So we really went full circle with owning people.  When a woman is pregnant the main thought is generally, “MY BABY.” But we see more and more people promoting abortion by women who scream, “MY BODY!”  Both groups feel ownership, but one group sees their baby as their slave, their property, sub-human to do with as they desire.  So the next time you have a conversation with a pro-abortionist ask them how they feel about slavery?  MAKE THE CONNECTION!

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured Writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

THE UNDOING OF UNITY WITH THE DEMON OF DIVERSITY! 

The Undoing of Unity With The Demon of Diversity!

June 26, 2018

 

 

For the last several decades the word, DIVERSITY echoes through the hills and valleys of our concrete jungles.  We are told over and over again that diversity is a good thing for our communities.  We are shamed if our cities and towns and the smallest of Hamlets are not intermixed with a variety of colors, shapes, religions and political leanings.  God forbid a community that can exist with likeness…  I decided to do a search on the word, Diversity to see how it had changed over the years to fit the political agenda we see now being thrust upon us.  So, obviously, I went to my very Old, Webster dictionary that mainly collects dust on my shelf.  It’s a first edition (1828) and actually has the real meanings of words gone by. 

DIVERSITY, noun [Latin]

  1. Difference; dissimilitude; unlikeness. There may be diversity without contrariety. There is a great diversity in human constitutions.
  2. Variety; as a diversity of ceremonies in churches.
  3. Distinct being, as opposed to identity.
  4. Variegation.

Then to the newest edition of Websters, just to see how much the meaning of the word had changed and the political and ethnic spin it may have garnered.  So, I type in the word, Diversity and Webster def. and I am immediately and firstly given the Plural:

 

DEFINITION OF DIVERSITY

plural diversities

1

: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements

: variety; especially

: the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization  

  • programs intended to promote
  • diversity in schools

2

: an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities

: an instance of being diverse  

  • a diversity of opinion

 

  •  
  •  

I am not sure if you noticed the subtle differences in the definitions, but from 1828 to 2018 we went from unlikeness, diversity in church ceremonies, a distinct being; to variety–“especially” different races, cultures, organization and, here is the kicker–PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY IN SCHOOLS!  We must ask ourselves a few questions, as the meaning of diversity has now become a calling card for promoting differences and tolerance, and we must intellectually ask ourselves if this is really a good thing.

I remember my dad telling me about living in NY city as a little boy.  He lived with his migrant parents in a place called, Little Italy.  He told me of all the little communities, the Italians, the Germans, the Chinese, etc. all living in one small borough of NY City.  The one thing they all had in common was their desire to be Americans, to find, for themselves and their children, the American Dream!  These people were about as diverse as it comes, but their one common ground was their love for their new country, the United States.  They may have had difficulty communicating, but the majority made darn sure their children learned English and LOVED this country as much as they did.  Public schools didn’t have ESL (English as a Second Language), classes, these kids just had to learn ENGLISH and they did.  Diversity wasn’t an option and DIVERSITY wasn’t taught in schools. Even though each ethnic group lived in their own community, in their own cultures, they wanted to be Americans.  The Germans didn’t try to force their culture on the Italians, the Chinees didn’t impose their beliefs on the Dutch and none of these immigrants would even consider trying to force their cultures upon on the Americans who welcomed them into this country.  But they did force some pretty good food down our throats!

Now let’s look at the opposite of Diversity.  The opposite of Diversity is UNITY!  UNITY!  While the US, the world even, is pushing the concept of diversity are they really doing more harm than good?  Why would anyone want diversity over unity?  Sometimes we must take a very hard and focused view on what the big push for diversity is and why.  Knowing that Diversity is the Opposite of Unity, why would we be constantly programmed to embrace DIVERSITY?  For starters, let’s break this down into very simplistic ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. How well, do these two groups get along?  We currently see in our political climate that the left and the right do not play well together.  We are witnessing a period of time like no other we have ever seen.  Violence, protests, Gays setting up bakers, florist’s, wedding planners and photographers for lawsuits and restaurants refusing service to Trump supporters…we have Congresswomen advocating all-out war on conservatives, so even going so far as to say the blood must be shed…THIS is the true advocacy of diversity!  Do we want this?  OR is this even a good idea?

So let’s take a look at the definition of UNITY:

Westers 1st Edition:

Unity

U’NITY, noun [Latin unitas.]

  1. The state of being one; oneness. unity may consist of a simple substance or existing being, as the soul; but usually it consists in a close junction of particles or parts, constituting a body detached from other bodies. unity is a thing undivided itself, but separate from ever other thing.

2.Concord; conjunction; as a unity of proofs.

  1. Agreement; uniformity; as unity of doctrine; unity of worship in a church.
  2. In christian theology, oneness of sentiment, affection or behavior.

How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! Psalms 133:1.

  1. In mathematics, the abstract expression for any unit whatsoever. The number 1 is unity when it is not applied to any particular object; but a unit, when it is so applied.
  2. In poetry, the principle by which a uniform tenor of story and propriety of representation is preserved. In the drama, there are three unities; the unity of action, that of time, and that of place. In the epic poem, the great and almost only unity is that of action.
  3. In music, such a combination of parts as to constitute a whole, or a kind of symmetry of style and character.
  4. In law, the properties of a joint estate are derived from its unity which is fourfold; unity of interest, unity of title, unity of time, and unity of possession; in other words, joint-tenants have one and the same interest, accruing by one and the same conveyance, commencing at the same time, and held by one and the same undivided possession.
  5. In law, unity of possession, is a joint possession of two rights by several titles, as when a man has a lease of land upon a certain rent, and afterwards buys the fee simple. This is a unity of possession, by which the lease is extinguished.

Unity of faith is an equal belief of the same truths of God, and possession of the grace of faith in like form and degree.

Unity of spirit, is the oneness which subsists between Christ and his saints, by which the same spirit dwells in both, and both have the same disposition and aims; and it is the oneness of Christians among themselves, united under the same head, having the same spirit dwelling in them, and possessing the same graces, faith, love, hope, etc.

 

Websters 2018:

DEFINITION OF UNITY

plural unities

1

a : the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness

b (1) : a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation 

  • in a table of natural sines the radius of the circle is regarded as unity

   (2) : identity element

2

a : a condition of harmony : accord

: continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)

3

a : the quality or state of being made one : unification

b : a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character

: a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

: any of three principles of dramatic structure derived by French classicists from Aristotle’s Poetics and requiring a play to have a single action represented as occurring in one place and within one day

: a 20th century American religious movement that emphasizes spiritual sources of health and prosperity

 

WOW, ok so we have deviated very far from the meaning of the word UNITY and formulated a new meaning which takes away the true meaning of Unity, of being of ONE MIND, the opposite of Diversity!  Let’s just be honest with each other, Diversity is NOT a good thing for a community, a city or a Nation.  We are currently experiencing exactly what the concept of diversity really expects from us; THE OPPOSITE OF UNITY!  Now, I really don’t care what color your skin is, or if you worship Jesus, Jehovah, or Mohamad, or if you want to sleep with Peter, Paul or Mary, but to be a cohesive community, city or nation, we must NOT have diversity, but Unity!  We must STOP PROMOTING Diversity.  Our country needs to come together as ONE, in UNITY.  We must have a set of CORE belief’s as a Nation, anything else is division, which is a synonym for diversity!  Don’t fall for the Devil’s deception of division in the form of diversity.  Stand for Unity, together we stand, DIVIDED WE FALL!  Don’t buy into the Demon of diversity! 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4earth and a featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

The Welfare Plantation 

The Welfare Plantation

October 29, 2018

 

 

Prior to the 1960’s, 80% of black families had a 2 parent support system. The black family was thriving and not dependant upon the Government for their care. So what happened and why are we so conditioned to resort to the Slavery rhetoric when it comes to the poor black communities? President Johnson initiated a program called “The War On Poverty” and part of this so-called “war” was designed to make sure that fathers were not in the household for mothers to obtain Government assistance.

 

This was the beginning of the complete collapse of the low-income family. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery of the past, but everything to do with the American Welfare Plantation!

 

As we hurtle towards the 2018 mid-term elections we are witnessing a multitude of black people breaking the chains that have held them captive on the Welfare Plantation since the 1960s. But how did they even get there to begin with? How did so many gain their freedom to then become lulled back into slavery? Let’s start with the realities and racism of our President at the time, Lyndon B Johnson. “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.” He was also famous for saying, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” Johnson had a very precise plan and so far it has been working. All he had to do was to undereducated the black community, get rid of fathers and control their food and health care.

Although Lyndon Johnson, championed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signed it into law, it was well known that he was a racist. Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson referred to it as the “nigger bill” to his political colleagues. After appointing Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he is reported as saying, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.” So let’s put all the rhetoric away and just call Johnson what he was–A RACIST! And he had NO INTENTIONS of helping the black communities. In reality, he was hell-bent on destroying them! The “War on Poverty” campaign was the ticket to do just that, and it worked!

 

According to “Project 21” (a leading voice for Black Conservatives) Spokesman, Derryck Green, “The disastrous effects of the government’s management of anti-poverty initiatives are recognizable across racial lines, but the destruction is particularly evident in the black community. It effectively subsidized the dissolution of the black family by rendering the black man’s role as a husband and a father irrelevant, invisible and — more specifically — disposable. The result has been several generations of blacks born into broken homes and broken communities experiencing social, moral and economic chaos. It fosters an inescapable dependency that primarily, and oftentimes solely, relies on the government to sustain livelihoods.”

Regan knew this was disastrous for the black communities, “We waged war on poverty and poverty won.” But really did nothing to stop it. President George H.W. Bush, in the 1992 State of the Union Address, pointed out: ‘Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle; it was never meant to be a habit; it was never supposed to be passed on from generation to generation like a legacy.’ Bush’s comment echoed a statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, long before the War on Poverty even began, warned government assistance could be like a ‘narcotic.'”

And the terrible irony is that even the people in the poor black communities in the 70’s knew how devastating it was to be back on the Plantation…they saw their children and grandchildren ignorantly slip their chains on as they became slaves to Welfare for decades and they were powerless to stop it. This was very calculated and by no means was an attempt to “help” to the poor, especially the black poor. By its design, the welfare system was meant to discourage fathers from being in the home and in essence encouraging single motherhood and multiple children. The government was extremely strict on their law–NO FATHERS ALLOWED to receive assistance. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing and understood how quickly they could put the poor blacks back into chains.

 

**FIND THE VIDEO ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS HISTORY OF WELFARE FOR BLACKS (BLACK BACK INTO CHAINS)

 

And now, we are here in 2018 and it appears that a very large number of black people are starting to speak out against their slave masters, AKA the Democratic Party and are shedding their chains and walking away from the Plantation. Just as it was before, they are going to leave penniless into their country without the slavemaster talking care of them. But they will find that they can forge their way, they can find success, the plantation ghettoes will no longer be their home.

FATHERS, WELCOME HOME! Now go rebuild your communities!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 To Eat or NOT to Eat…Organic is the question! 

To Eat or NOT to Eat…Organic is the question!

September 6, 2015

 

 

 

 

As the debate continues to rage on regarding the health benefits of a diet consisting of organic food, some of us are like children, standing in the middle of the cornfield scratching our heads.  While I have not explored this issue to extremes, I have certainly seen the ever-expanding organic sections in my local grocery store.  These supposed, better for you items generally hail on the top shelf, with top-shelf prices and fancy signs made to stimulate your intellect of “good for you stuff.”  “Simply stated, organic produce and other ingredients are grown without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms, or ionizing radiation. Animals that produce meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products do not take antibiotics or growth hormones.” (http://www.organic.org/home/faq)  Even the USDA has jumped on the organic bandwagon by regulating those farmers who bring their wares to our stores and restaurants with a fancy seal of approval.  Ok, straight from our government, with their seal of approval, it must be better for us.  Right?  Obvious more nutritious than that dangerous, cancer-causing food we have consumed for decades. 

The United States Department of Agriculture states on their website, “Organic farming systems rely on ecologically based practices such as cultural and biological pest management, exclusion of all synthetic chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones in crop and livestock production.”  (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO)  This certainly gives me the impression that eating organic is better.  After all who wants synthetic chemicals in our bodies?  “Ecologically based practices”, now who doesn’t want to save our planet?  “The National Organic Program  has several agreements in place with other countries to facilitate trade of U.S. organic products while also ensuring a consistent supply of organic products for U.S. markets.”  So if our government needs to ensure that we as consumers are supplied with organic products from other countries (in case we run out), then this must be a serious issue in regards to our health. 

As much as I trust our government to guide my healthful food choices I have to question their involvement in the organic market.  I mean, for goodness sakes we have been growing and consuming our food, straight from the ground from the beginning of time…organic.  But the USDA website in a roundabout way, suggests that organic food with the USDA seal of approval is somehow better for you.  “Look at the label. If you see the USDA organic seal, the product is certified organic and has 95 percent or more organic content.”  (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPConsumers)  The site also goes into detail about the care and treatment of the critters that people are going to eat.  So that chicken that got to roam free on the range will certainly hold more health benefits than his cousin down the street that is stuffed into a cage for the 3 months of his life. 

 

The problem with these certifications and assertions made by this government agency is that all they are really trying to do is to regulate those unscrupulous farmers from making a buck off the word “organic” if their product is not truly “organic”.  That USDA organic seal does not make the food anymore or less healthful to us.  As a matter of fact, I could not find one credible source that makes the claim that an organic product has any greater nutritional value than those that do not claim the organic moniker.  Nutrition for nutrition they are the same.  “…no evidence of a health benefit attached to organic foods.” 

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/09/04/is-organic-food-better

So if that truly is the case, then why?  Why go to the expense, risk more rapid spoilage to sell a more expensive product if the health benefits do not outweigh the costs?  David L. Katz writer for health.usnews.com seems to believe that there is some evidence to suggest that, at least in some organic foods, there is a higher nutrition rate.  He states in his Sept. 4th, 2012 editorial, Is Organic Food Better, “There was some evidence of higher antioxidant levels in organic produce, and higher omega-3 levels in organic poultry and dairy.”   But goes on to say that there were no clear health benefits.  I am by no means a certified nutritionist but it seems logical to me that if there were higher levels of those amazing antioxidants, everyone, raves about these days then one could conclude that is BETTER!  And how about those omega-3 levels?  Heck, I don’t know what they are or what they do, but I do know however that it is one of the ingredients in my multi-vitamin.  It must be good for you…and higher doses must be even better.

Katz goes on to state this in his ambiguous blog, “But as noted above, failure to find a health benefit may be more about the absence of such evidence, than true evidence for the absence of such an influence.”  Ok, so what does that even mean?  Is it a riddle?  Perhaps a code meant only for the organic groupies to understand?  Katz asks us to use our imagination a few times in regards to pesticides linked to cancer and other maladies, and then poses another riddle for us to ponder; “So, a considerable health benefit of eating organic remains possible—but consigned to the world of statistical invisibility.”  I was never very good at riddles.  And let’s also consider the statement I made earlier regarding organic and conventionally grown foods…the statement I quoted, “…no evidence of a health benefit attached to organic foods.”  Is a direct quote from Katz.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/09/04/is-organic-food-better

Katz tries to play the planet card, evoking my humanity to our Dear mother Earth; “In general, its production is kinder and gentler to the planet, and our fellow species.”  Seems to me this is more of a neo-political move than one of a health concern.

Then there are the real organic freaks who would rather starve to death than eat a can of Chef Boyardee .  And then there are the people who have completely lost their minds… organically minded pet owners.  Brad Kriser, founder, and CEO of an all-natural, organic pet food, aptly named Kriser’s was interviewed by KCAL9 studios in Los Angeles on Sept. 25th, 2012 (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/go-organic-with-your-pets-food-with-tips-from-krisers/) touted the health benefits of his pet food which he claims is, “better food for your pet!”  Kriser claims that his organic pet food can, “Improve skin and coat, Better digestion, improve immunity, Feed less”.  Well, I have to wonder, how can an organic pet food product make such a claim to the enhanced nutrition of their food but study after study performed on food for human consumption finds no life-changing benefits?  Is the physiology of humans so different than that of its best friend? 

Kriser states on his company website (http://www.krisers.com/blog/)  “We are firm believers in the benefits of our products and services and it’s very humbling to receive such an award. Our goal is to deliver high-quality pet food and supplies to help all pets stay as happy and healthy as possible.”  He also claims that his organic pet foods are his commitment to helping pets live a longer healthier life.    Now I just want to know how is it that a pet food company can propagate these health benefits, win awards, state claims that are unfounded in the world of USDA Seals and no one cries FOUL.  Or could it be that this pricey pet provision just contains fewer fillers and more proteins and this is the reason for the health enhancement?  That the “all-natural organic” aspect has absolutely nothing to do with visible results.  Ok, so I have to find out.  The majority of the top ten organic dog foods contained no horrible by-products (fillers) and almost every one contained high amounts of protein. (http://www.dogfoodscoop.com/dog-food-comparison.html)   Even Paul Newman has traded in the sauce for organic pet food.  (http://www.newmansownorganics.com/pet/faqs/)  However, his pet food is USDA certified.  Which, I suppose means that I could chow down with the puppies.  One of the customer comments on Newman’s organic website states, “Once they got back on Newman’s Own Organics, they were happy, healthy, eating and pooping regularly again.”    I found this little tidbit on Newman’s site to be quite interesting, “Newman’s Own Organics organic pet food uses human grade and fit for human consumption ingredients such as natural chicken and organic grains. The AAFCO Board (Association of American Feed Control Officials), which is the regulatory agency for animal foods, actually prohibits the printing of “Human Grade” on pet food packaging.” (http://www.newmansownorganics.com/pet/petfoodfaq.php#Q_156)  Perhaps the reasoning for this is because we, as humans would expect our digestive health to be regular, our hair to be soft and shiny and by consuming this our health would be improved and we would most likely live longer.  At least that is what the peddlers of the organic pet foods claim will happen to our pets by feeding them organic food.  Although, these organic dog foods claim that their pet poop is regular but less (not as much poop to clean up) than the average dog on that horrible non-organic food.  I suppose I am just really ignorant and a dog’s digestive tract is completely different than that of his best friend the human (NOT), and eating organic is supposed to make him poop less but it is to our benefit as a biped to poop more and frequently to be healthy, and eating organic will urge us to, um achieve this  …? 

So what do I really think about all this organic hype?  Well, what I do know is this; 100 years ago the average lifespan in the United States was 47.  All of our food was so-called organic”…farmers and the average Joe grew it and ate it.  We didn’t have pesticides, the crops were watered when it rained.  No one really cared if the pigs were happy in dirty little pig pens, well except for Charlotte, but that’s another story.  I am also not a nutritional anthropologist but I suspect the organics of the food people ate back then had little to do with their longevity as much as it had to do with the first basic necessity of life—FOOD. 

It seems apparent to me, from all three sources researched that there is certainly an agenda where the organic food market is concerned; perhaps even a two-fold agenda.  The first is a provocation by the liberal left to eat organic and by doing so you will not only save the planet but provide a humane, dignified life and death for the animals consumed as certified organic. Prior to the organic blitz people actually thought that this type of food was more healthful to our bodies, cured cancers, prolonged life, etc.   And that is the reason why almost every google search on the subject states, “Is organic REALLY better?”, “Do organic Foods Promote better Health?”…and the like.  Because tests and studies have proven organic foods to not show any beneficial health results than their commercially grown counterparts.

To understand the second all we need to do is follow the flow of the dough.  The organic food industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors of U.S. agriculture.  “The current demand for organic produce is increasing faster than supply…” (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe732)   And the Government wants its cut in this BIG business, this profit maker!  This being said, and with the first Lady of Obama land telling us we should all grow a garden and eat more healthful then why oh why is the government doing things like this?  “State authoritarians recently raided a picnic at an organic farm after State health authorities were informed that the farm was hosting a picnic without their permission.  The raid took place at the Quail Hollow Farm,  operated by Laura and Monty Bledsoe, which is a type of Community Supported Agricultural farm.”  (http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/11/10/authorities-raid-picnic-in-nevada-force-chef-to-pour-bleach-on-good-food/)  All the food at this event was thrown into the trash and bleach was poured all over it so no one could eat it.  Because the government doesn’t want this little money maker to be out of their control!

 

So if we are being educated on the actual facts regarding organic foods and the lack of evidence to support health benefits, why then are so many people buying into the hype?  Could it be the slick marketing campaigns that cause us to question using that poisonous high fructose corn syrup?  Or the fear of having babies with 2 heads if we eat Genetically modified Frankenfoods?  I must say though, after reading this: “The Food and Drug Administration, however, told the Times it does not regulate the pesticidal potato because it does not have the authority to regulate pesticides; that responsibility, it claims, falls on the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA, meanwhile, says labeling pesticidal potatoes are under the FDA’s purview since potatoes are a food. But the FDA says federal law forbids the food agency from including information about pesticides on foods.”  (http://www.naturalchoice.net/articles/gmos.htm)  I am gripped with fear and have lost all sensibility and may perhaps rethink my original stance on organic foods.   And I may just grow a garden! Please pass the potatoes, but make sure they are organic.

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.

 

 

 Trump Plays another card but doesn’t show his hand…YET. 

Trump Plays another card but doesn’t show his hand…YET.

March 26, 2018

 

There are many politically minded folks, Trump supporters and those who are still on the fence having FITS about this Omnibus bill Trump signed last week. Laura Ingraham blasted Trump’s actions on her show and several conservative radio and TV personalities like Tucker Carlson have been quick to jump down his throat. Then there was the “letter” that floated around this weekend signed by Trump and addressed to the Speaker of the house and the President of the Senate Committee that was cryptic unless one looked up the statutes, codes, and meanings contained in the letter, and then still…

 

I spent a great deal of time over the weekend looking up all the sections and codes and meanings contained therein and completed my civic duty by posting them on Facebook for all to see and understand. HA! I don’t think that anyone had much of a clue as to what I had posted because we all know success and comprehension is gauged by how many, “likes” and “shares” we receive…and perhaps it was simply because I had been the one doing the research that it made perfect sense to me, but not so much to anyone reading my research. To the average Joe it read like; Bla bla bla, more bla bla bla…

 

 

 

So, this morning, while scrolling through my Facebook page, looking for pearls of wisdom, I came across this commentary on a friend’s page. Unfortunately, in true Facebook form, I am not able to track down the Author and it has the infamous words; “BORROWED”, which somehow gives credence to whoever reposts. My Kudos go out to the originating author of these points. I simply corrected the misspellings and grammar but kept to the original content.

 

“Trump is a genius. First, he didn’t sign the bill into law. He signed it as an Omnibus. Why is that difference so important? Let’s talk about what the President can and can’t do for this Omnibus Bill. There’s a lot of discussions both ways.

  1. Congress allocates money to be spent. The President spends the allocated money.
  2. Once Congress allocates money, their job is oversight of the money being spent. They don’t spend the money and have no say HOW it gets spent as long as it’s spent legally. That’s their job to monitor with oversight.
  3. Once the President is given the money with the instructions to spend it, he has a number of choices to make in spending it. There are some rules he has to follow & some of the money is fungible and some aren’t.
  4. However, there are some other factors that are in play here. One of them is that the President has declared a Human Rights Emergency AND has notified Congress that he’s invoking the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
  5. This opens up new options.
  6. By making these two declarations President Trump has just communicated that he has the authority to NOT spend any funds he doesn’t deem necessary and will return them to the US Treasury. So, funds for Planned Parenthood? He can simply not allocate the funds.
  7. Also, these declarations make some funds fungible. For instance, if he determines that building a Wall on the Southern Border is a defense against Human Trafficking? He can move funds from anywhere else in the Defense Dept Allocation & simply build the Wall.
  8. Congress is powerless to stop cash reallocations on an omnibus bill AND cannot stop the DOD from taking measures under a declared Emergency.
  9. Despite their language in the Omnibus Bill about the Border Wall, it is trumped by the State of Emergency that Trump declared. So in summary – This will go to the Courts. Congress will sue the President over the Border Wall. But here’s how it will play out – Congress and the President are co-equal branches with different functions. Congress allocates. The President spends.

The President has National Security as his Primary Responsibility and it’s his job to use whatever funds and declarations he needs to for that job. No Court in this Nation (except corrupt on the take Judges) would EVER rule against a President for exercising that authority.

  1. In the end, the Supreme Court (yes, that’s where it will end) will fully VALIDATE the President’s Constitutional Authority & the Wall will be built.”

 

 

Daniella Cross is the Guardian of 4Earth and featured writer.

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement Intended.

 

 

 WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE! Eventually… 

 

WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE! Eventually…

February 25, 2019

 

 

Back in the ’70s, Leonard Nimoy made a documentary about the coming Global Ice-age. It was WIDELY shown in Public schools all across the Nation. I don’t really remember what its purpose was other than to fearmonger and scare little kids to death…implanting in our impressionable little minds and emotions that within a decade or so we were all going to either freeze to death or die of starvation…but one thing was for sure, WE WERE ALL GOING TO DIE! Raise your hand if you remember seeing or even hearing about this “scientifically true” documentary as a kid!

 

 

 

 

We then lived through the holes in the Ozone that were going to kill us all…like they were simply going to open up and suck out our brains and we would all die a grisly death while we watched the skin literally melt off our friend’s bodies. Then came Al Gore making the “SCARIEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME!” ​​The same theme of death and destruction, starvation, skin melting off our bones, and everyone was going to drown or burn, starve or even freeze to death–gotta cover all the bases. Again, this was shown in public schools, to little kids because it really needed to be REINFORCED that their futures were DOOMED…evidently their parents totally forgot about the ICEAGE that came and went without notice…but this, THIS was going to happen and happen within the decade! So, the majority of the kids that had to watch that movie in 2006 are now adults, still perhaps teetering on the brink of extinction, but still alive to tell about the horrors they have experienced due to Global Warming! They must have a reminder of the destruction they are causing to pass to their children…Mrs. O’Leary’s cow has had babies, a LOT of babies and if you think that fire was bad, you just wait…just one match to their posterior is all it will take!

 

 

 

 

And now we have a fresh batch of flesh to scare and to prove that in 12 years, YES ONLY 12 YEARS the planet is going to perish and every living thing with it! We have the Notable Scientist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explaining to us, especially our children that we are all DOOMED to extinction in the very near future if WE DON’T do something NOW; we will be overcome by Bovine Flatulence and just drop dead in our tracks. Although, there is a highlight to this fearmongering…watching the Liberals eat their own young. I mean if you’re going to die, it might as well be at the hands of the ones that created you…right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daniella Cross is the caretaker of 4Earth and featured writer

 

 

 

 

ALL images used in this site rely on the U.S. Copyright law doctrine of “Fair Use” with No Copyright Infringement intended.