There is a movement afoot … and it is about saving our lives.  I’m not talking about the lives of our corporate masters and their Technocracy … I’m talking about the lives of every living thing on this planet.

We are not alone!  We are not the only ones concerned!  We are not stupid and we are not going to be fooled any more.  Take a look at the video in this link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx-G1uhRqA

I don’t think you should believe just me … or any of the other people who have shown concern, made videos, written papers, done scientific studies, or protested.

I challenge you … yes … you! 

Go visit an oil-sand project (you won’t believe your eyes) … I dare you to drink from any river or stream (and believe you won’t get sick from it) … go see the local garbage dump and ask if they can keep the toxic chemical that have been buried there from ever leaking out into our soil and water … visit a farm and speak to its operators about why they feel compelled to plant GMO seeds … drive through an area that has been strip-mined and ask how much water they use it their operation and where that water goes … go see that area that used to be a forest but has been harvested for its lumber.  Look up at the Chemtrails they are spraying into the air we breathe leaving streaks across the sky that blot out the sun.  Ask a neighbor to join you (it will give you both a shoulder to cry on).

Is this the world … is this the environment … is this the heritage … you want to leave for future generations … for your own children?

The corporate technocracy is getting away with destroying our world environment because most people are asleep … and not saying anything.  Well I am and now it’s your turn.

You can't hope that someone else will care ... you need to care!
You can't expect someone else to act ... you need to act!
You can't wait till later ... the only time you control is what we call "now"!

Take a look at the link attached.  https://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/radiation-poisoning/helen-caldicott-im-not-fearmongeringthis-is-all-too-real.html

We have had a terrible and tragic storm hit the rust-belt section of the United States, the North-east.  Much of our infrastructure has been wrecked meaning no electric power (among other things).  Where there is no electric power you cannot run water pumps … thus there is no water supply … not for drinking or flushing toilets … and not for the pumps that keep nuclear fuel rods from going (dare I say it) nuclear.

During a news broadcast the other day I believe I heard them say there were 21 nuclear power stations in the affected area and at least two were reported “on shut-down” due to the storm.  No electricity, no pumps to cool the rods … but no worries, we are told; those nuclear plants have their own back-up generators.  However, generators depend of fuel to run so at some point they will need to be refueled and that will depend on the ability of our infrastructure to recover and deliver the fuel.  I really hope this doesn’t become an issue. 

But there is a larger issue here.  Think back to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima!  Does your recollections of the early stages of those misadventures with nuclear power stations include the authorities bending over backwards to keep the public informed with accurate information?  Mine doesn’t!  In fact, for the most part it seemed like their approach was to provide absolute minimum information. 

Watch the video above and then ask yourself this question.  Based on the what we already know about the “authorities” and their willingness to disclose full and accurate information … if there was the potential for a melt-down …

1.      What would they tell us … and what would they hold back?

2.      When would they tell us … after they safely evacuated their own families … never?  Would they decide, like they did at Fukushima, that all they needed to do is change the radiation levels they deem safe?

3.      Who would get in trouble … for informing the public (or not informing the public), or for misleading us into thinking nuclear power is safe (well, I guess in a way it is … if you don’t mind waiting 20,000 years or so).  Ask anyone from Chernobyl when was the last time you could go home?

4.      Where would they move the people … how do you feel about living, permanently, in a FEMA camp?

5.      How would we fix a melt-down once it occurred … Chernobyl fallout spread over tens of thousands of square miles and drove more than a quarter million people from their homes and that area was fairly remote compared to one of our big cities.  Chernobyl has a thirty Kilometer radius exclusion zone … what would that mean in the Northeastern United States?

Should we be asking the people in Washington why they want to shut down all the coal fired power plants … do we really want more nuclear risks?  Frankly, I have not been sold on the global warming treatise … but even if it’s true, I would take a little global warming over a 20,000 year exclusion zone covering a huge expanse on the Northeastern United States.

From Wikipedia we get: Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear reactor accidents from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. The accidents involved meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolant, and occurred during both normal operation and extreme emergency conditions (such as droughts and earthquakes). Property damage costs include destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and court claims. Because nuclear reactors are large and complex accidents onsite tend to be relatively expensive.

What to do in a nuclear reactor emergency; https://www.acsim.army.mil/readyarmy/Nuclear_Power_Plant_Emergency_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Nuclear Reactors; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

Now do some of your own research.  For example, find out how long we need to keep spent nuclear fuel rods in coolant vessels … and after that how long they are still unsafe to life.  Spent rods need to go somewhere during that period … but where … your back yard … your neighbors … maybe we should dump them all in the ocean (I hope you don’t like eating fish).

What is going on with those nuclear power plants out east … is there something they're afraid to tell us about ... right now?

Think about it!  You’ll know what to do!

Take a look at the link attached.  https://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/consciousness/the-story-of-bottled-water.html

I’m convinced that we have choices … but not always easy choices.  The video in the link above make a strong case for the idea that we have been mislead into thinking bottled water is better for our health than tap water.  

Main points of the case presented in the video.

1.      A self-interested private industry finds ways to convince us the tap water we drink is somehow less healthy than the bottled water product they sell. This ploy is called “manufactured demand” and is produced by creating fear and insecurity in the public’s mind.

2.      Ads and packaging designs that glorify natural settings like pure flowing natural mountain streams leads us to make the assumption that the bottled stuff comes from those sources … and it is not always true.  Then there is the “Honesty in labeling” requirements that make the bottlers tell us where the water came from … but they use fine print to do it … knowing full well that very few people actually read the fine print.

3.      The city government, who is the target of the misinformation campaign in the video, decides to fight back with quality (and taste) tests of their own that challenge the claims of the bottler.  Good plan, but not mentioned in the video is the idea that municipalities commonly use a variety of chemicals to purify their tap water. 

Then there is that fact that in many cases the piped delivery system for public water is so old and poorly maintained that additional chemicals are added to the water just to keep it safe inside the pipes (and you drink this stuff)..  But even worse, many municipalities still fluoridate the water.  Fluoride is a known and extremely dangerous toxic chemical.  Topically (and in small doses) it can help prevent tooth decay … but with drinking water it is taken internally, not topically.

Two other points:  First, taste tests have little to do with actual quality or purity.  That means the city was trying to engage the same tactics the bottler was using … misdirection.  Two, where self –interest is involved one cannot trust test results provided by the provider of any consumer product.  It would be like trusting the bottlers to test and report on their own quality.  I hope I’m not the only one who sees a problem with that.

4.      Bottled water, it turns out, is not always from pristine mountain streams, naturally purified aquifers, or natural springs.  Many times that bottled water actually comes from filtered tap water. 

5.      The creation of plastic bottles, for any product, is an environmentally irresponsible act.  The manufacturing process alone consumes a tremendous amount of oil based products.  And, the bottles themselves are almost indestructible … creating waste management issues.  All these bottles end up in garbage dumps or in the now famous floating plastic-debris islands found in practically ever ocean around the globe.  Sometimes the bottles are even burned … creating toxic smog emitted into the atmosphere … you know, into that stuff we breathe.

6.      Quality in the bottled water industry is, many times, less regulated than that of tap water.

7.      Bottled water ends up costing the consumer about 2000 times more than tap water.

This video was about water and it is intended to make us think about the choices we make … difficult choices.  Do we pay a higher price for bottled water when it might be no different from what we get from the tap?  Do we allow a “manufactured demand” to pollute our landfills and oceans with plastic debris?  Do we want our atmosphere polluted through the creation and use of more oil based products?

Here is the bigger question!  If one self-interested private industry can make us believe we need something we don’t … just because they need to maintain their growth curve and profits … just what do you think every other consumer based industry is engaged in? 

Same thing … right?

I’m troubled.  See https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-destructive-canada-oil-sands-2012-10

I’m troubled twice.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4l6ArtUlrk

Now I’m troubled thrice.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAxu-yj8Ok

Make that … I’m troubled four times.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uieBWL9mOdk

No really … I’m just livid!

Let me suggest a few things …

First, anytime there is an oil spill the reaction of the oil companies is “OOPS, we’re sorry … but it wasn’t our fault … it was an accident!”  Frankly, if you do any research on your own you will find that the frequency of such spills belies the claim of “oops”.  It really points toward an attitude of carelessness based on the “corporate” need to maximize profits (at any cost, LOL)!

Second, it is troubling that the citizens of the world are willing to look the other way while the practice of cutting corners to save cost wrecks our environment all over the world.  It involves your air, your water, and your soil … have you forgotten you need those things to live? 

Third, Let me put it another way.  If our air was somehow removed from the planet we would only survive for minutes.  If our water was removed from the planet we could perhaps survive a few days.  If our soil was removed from our planet we would no longer be able to grow our food and our lives would be cut off in a few short weeks.  If we no longer had oil … it would certainly be inconvenient … but life would go on.  Well this sloppy “I don’t care” attitude the corporations have developed is slowly killing the viability of our air, water, and soils.  There is an old Native American saying, “We do not own the world, we have only borrowed it from our children”.  So what is it going to be like … this world we are preparing for our children to live in?  Do we think technology will save them … well not if it costs the oil companies more money!  Can we afford to wait to put a stop to this ongoing pollution … do you suppose cleanup costs will be lower 10 years from now, or 50 years from now … or do you not care because it will be someone else’s problem after you are dead and gone.

Fourth, I hear a cry … let’s make oil companies clean up their act!  NO … what we want is for them to stop creating this mess in the first place.  We just have to put the viability of life on this planet above their (or anyone’s) need for profit.

Our Supreme Court has given corporations a level of legal recognition as if they were real human beings, and thus they enjoy many of the same rights.  But corporations have a dark side.  Where a human being has emotion, and love, and concern, and shares the common thread of life with other living things … a corporation has none of those attributes.

Beginning with concern for life let me first point out that a corporation is completely immune to what we call death.  A corporation can be dissolved (a legal term) which simply means it ceases doing business … but it has nothing to do with death (in human terms).  One cannot expect a non-living entity (another legal term) to have the same concern for life as a living entity.  Explaining the full meaning of death to a corporation would be a little like explaining the color red to someone who is blind.  The color red is an experience based upon visual perception.  To someone who has never had vision the color red is completely without meaning … just as the living-species-based concern for life is a completely meaningless term to a corporate entity that has never experienced life’s precious self-awareness.

In human psychological terms the corporation is pathological … because it drives single mindedly towards profit regardless of the broader implications of its actions.  In fact, if one looks at many of the most recent manifestations of corporate behavior … corporations have become downright sociopathic.  (see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath).

I know what you are thinking.  Corporate stocks are owned by people and the corporations themselves are run by people … so how can I be saying they have no heart?  People care … so we should have nothing to fear … right?  WRONG … so, let’s drill deeper!

From Wikipedia we get (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) that the corporation is a legal entity (non-living) that has legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from those of its shareholders.  While there are a number of key distinctions the single most important is that the stockholders have no personal liability.  It means stockholders cannot be held personally liable for any debt or misdeed of the corporation.  Stock ownership is thereby theoretically reduced to a vehicle for increasing wealth (in other words … making a profit). 

The stock market itself is almost completely defined by investors who are willing to place bets (by buying stock) on corporations that either make substantial profits and pay dividends, or stocks that are the most likely to increase in sale value at some future time.  And by the way, the increase in stock value does not necessarily have to be based on any real increase in corporate assets (just re-saleability).  With no liability for what the corporation needs to do to increase its value, the stockholder pressures the operators of said corporation to perform, or the investor will take their money elsewhere.  Now you are talking about corporate employees who find themselves in the unenviable position of “increase profitability or we’ll find someone else who can”!  Need I mention … corporate executives really don’t like the long lines at the soup kitchens … so they do what they must to keep their jobs!

Stockholders enjoy a low risk factor in that one can never lose more than their initial investment.  There is no incumbent liability for the debts or misdeeds of the corporation(s) in which they buy stocks.  And like Las Vegas they get to bet on the corporations most likely to provide the biggest return on their investment … regardless of how the operators of that corporate entity go about it.  Would it help you to know that the business model for the corporation has become so incredibly popular, so favorable, that its present manifestation completely dominates our world economies … and most notably our various world governments?

OK let’s look at this from another angle.  Are you aware that corporations have been known to have certain misadventures?  Well the list is way too long for this commentary so I’ll just offer a reference to help you out … see https://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=203.  Read this stuff on your own time and then ask the question, how many of these misadventures began with the demand of stockholders to cut costs and increase profits?  Here is another great question.  In spite of how heartless or heinous or greed based those various misdeeds might have been … have you ever heard of a corporation going to jail?  The answer is no!  What they do is go out of business, or go bankrupt (meaning they reorganize and continue doing business), or sell out to a competitor.  In every case … the cost of their misdeed(s) is passed on to someone else.  Here is an example.  Let’s say the misdeed involve some sort of toxic pollution.  If they go out of business, the cost of cleanup is left to the public (that’s us).  If they go bankrupt (or reorganize) they only pay a fraction of the cleanup costs under court direction and the rest is paid for ny the public (defined as you and I).  And if the company is bought out … the buyer never accepts responsibility for the cost of prior misadventures and the public gets to pay (still you and I).

Now here is the best part.  If you or I did this they would come after us for every cent we have or might earn in the future … for as long as the costs of cleanup are outstanding.  And they would do everything in their power to take away our assets, screw up our credit, and perhaps even put us in jail.  If a corporation does it they go out of business.  The executives who created this monster move on to other corporations and continue the same practices … stockholders perhaps lose their initial investments (oh my) … AND NO ONE GETS IN TROUBLE!

Let me just suggest this.  If we eliminated the idea of a no liability corporate executives and a no liability stockholder … would the people who invest in them and the people who operate them be a little more concerned with what these companies are doing … and how they are doing it?

If people knew they could no longer hide behind the corporate veil … wouldn’t we pollute less and be more inclined to invest in things that were more purely beneficial to the earth and every living thing that exists on the planet.  I guess the question is … do we really want our single motivation to be the pursuit of profit to the detriment of everything else?

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Did you know that a Federal Court in New York has determined that the “first-sale doctrine” should be overturned … and has done so.

See https://crooksandliars.com/jamie/supreme-court-sneak-peek-you-own-it-can-you

From Wikipedia we get … The first-sale doctrine plays an important role in copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, gifting, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

Now the federal court says that if said products were made overseas … their copyrights/trademarks should supersede the rights we have here in the USA.  So, theoretically, to resell any consumer goods with any parts made overseas (as in garage sale or moving sale; as in, used cars, TV sets, computers, etc) you would first need to get the permission of the overseas copyrights/trademarks holder.

If the corporate interests that started this whole thing can pull it off … it would mean most manufacturers would have a major incentive to move production overseas (there goes our jobs again).  Why?  So they would be able to extend their supposed rights and claim new profit centers.  You have to know, once this new law is in place, they would never let you sell such products without charging you a percentage of the resale.

Consider the difficulty of even knowing what foreign company might have parts in your computer/TV/refrigerator/stove/car/whatever.  And how long would it take to find out … and then get a permissive reply (and charge statement)?  Would they charge for estimates of what you might owe on a resale?

Another possible outcome … people wouldn’t bother to contact overseas manufacturers.  So our overloaded landfills would have an incredible influx of trash that no one wants to pay “resale-fees” on.

I have a better idea.  Let’s make all products the property of the original manufacturers and just pay them a monthly usage fee.  When the useful life of any consumer goods was reached … or if the user simply tired of it … that product would automatically be returned to the manufacturer.  It would be their lawful requirement to reprocess/recycle or dispose of it.  Wouldn’t it be much easier to police the proper disposal of goods when we only had to keep an eye on a few manufacturers rather than billions of consumers?

Do you suppose manufacturers would make products that would last longer, have more features, and be easier to recycle?  Do you suppose it would take a considerable burden off our landfills when manufacturers were required to recycle everything?

Hey … if they want all this ownership control … let’s give it to them!  If they want to make sure they always have their copyright/trademark rights … let’s force them to be responsible for what they make.

Has it occurred to anyone that the incredible cost to our ecosystems from “resource extraction” (see Wikipedia) and landfill overburdens is a COST FACTOR that the corporations have been passing on the consumer, to the public, and to our governments for hundreds of years?  Has it occurred to anyone that this is just one way the corporations have to enhance their profits … by passing disposal costs along to someone else (even for the things they make that are incredibly toxic)?

In a curious reversal … if you buy something they claim they have “rights” to and then try to resell it … they want to be paid.  But if you just throw the stuff away … they want to wash their hands of it.  If their rights extend beyond that first sale why wouldn’t the responsibility for “creating and disposing of it” extend beyond the first sale?  You can’t have it both ways!  And if something they created turned out to be toxic and polluted the air/water/soil … or somehow harmed any living species … shouldn’t their responsibilities reach to that level too? 

If they want their rights … I say let them have those rights … and ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT GO WITH IT, TOO!

When I’m elected KING … I will make it so!

See https://www.youvebeenowned.org/

Since the founding of this country … it was always our belief as citizens that we had certain rights … including protections from our own government.  These things were put in place by the founding fathers because individual rights, freedoms and protections had been rigorously abused by most of the previous forms of government they had seen.

See https://www.infowars.com/federal-court-dissolves-constitution/

And pay particular interest to the “Similar Related Articles” just under the video on this page.  Click on each heading (read the articles) and make your own judgment.  Here is the question … What ever happened to the legal system that plainly stated they absolutely cannot make ANY law that takes away our rights.

1.      Federal Court Rules In Favour Of Indefinite Detention Of US Citizens

2.      Federal Court Says States Can Regulate Guns

3.      Federal Appeals Court ‘Ignores Rule of Law,’ Defers to White House on Deportation Cases

4.      Private Contractor Criminal Torture Cases Given Go-Ahead by Federal Court

5.      Federal Judge Reinstates Unconstitutional NDAA

6.      Federal Court May Overturn Obamacare

7.      Supreme Court to Rule on Obamacare and Constitution’s Commerce Clause

8.      Federal Court Upholds TSA Use of Full-Body Scanners at Airports

9.      Court Rules Arpaio Can’t Detain Suspects Based on Belief They’re Here Illegally

10.  US spy agency can keep mum on Google ties: court

11.  NDAA banned: Indefinite detention of Americans ‘unconstitutional’

12.  Court rules Proposition 8 is unconstitutional

13.  A federal court has ruled that the US Government can indefinitely detain citizens indefinitely should it wish to do so.  Throws out #11 above.

Come on people … when will the Senators and Congressmen hear your voice? 

What will it take to finally convince you? 

The TSA isn’t going to find an Al Queda Operative hiding in your wife’s bra or in your children’s diapers … are they?   AND yet you permit these nonsensical and invasive searches anyway … what is wrong with you?

I did not write this … but wish I had. So the only thing left for me to do was share it with you.  But think about it ... what could be more appropriate at election time?

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...
He had been a journalist for 49 years.
He was retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican nor democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
------------------

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.  You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.  You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.  You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.  What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party.  He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.  If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.  If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.  They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.  Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.  We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true.  Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Comprehensive List of Current Taxes

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!

GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN!!!

Paradoxical Quote of the Day from Ben Stein:

“Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured … but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”

Now add this, “Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”

Look these up for yourself …

“Government is a disease … cleverly posing as its own cure.”

“Law is like the spider’s web … catches the fly and lets the hawk go free.”

“Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep … voting on what’s for dinner”

I suggest researching these quotes for yourself because I know you will find the sources to be fascinating … and they will lead to other information that will have you questioning who to vote for in the November election (and I don’t mean just the presidency).

Ben Stein’s quote is only one example of the rules and regulations put in place by representatives in federal, state, and local government that simply don’t make sense.

And here is one last thought.  Plato once wrote, “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”   We have relinquished our freedoms and our government to a corporatocracy because we, as individuals, have become complacent.  Believe me when I tell you … the corporations have not relied on complacency.

From Wikipedia: Corporatocracy is a term used to suggest an economic and political system is controlled by corporations or corporate interests.^[1] Its use is generally pejorative

California’s Proposition 37 is a call for the labeling of foods that contain GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).   The purpose behind such labeling is based on the same premise as labeling caloric content, sugars, cholesterol, and other ingredients so that the consumer can exercise informed and selective choice.

Critics have objected to GMO impregnated foods on several grounds.  There are health and safety issues, ecological concerns, and proprietary concerns.  Proprietary concerns are highlighted by the fact that GMO plants (and potentially animals), as a food sources, are subject to intellectual property laws.  These fears are well grounded in the fact that we could and up with a scenario where ruthless and money hungry corporations privately own all our food sources.  And yes … that would mean pay the corporations or starve.  Now why would we fear that (LOL)?

The opposition to labeling has sighted many reasons why labeling is not necessary or even needed.  Every one of those objectors is, in fact, a corporate (or corporate backed) interest … and their reasoning boils down to two points.  One is the claim that GMOs are perfectly safe (and that is up to question) … and the other is a panoply of profit based issues that only benefit the corporations.  In other words … corporations are afraid people will choose to not buy GMO foods.  If people don’t buy GMO foods it will cost the corporations billions in profits and they will be unable to totally control our food supplies.  No reason to fear that either … is there (LOL)?

Many countries across the world have already banned GMOs or insisted that foods containing GMOs be labeled as such.  You just have to ask yourself … if these GMO thingys are so safe … why are they afraid to tell us what is in our food?

On Corporations see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnE8D3tgZ5c

On Farmageddon see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uah8LBUbfc

On Controling our Food see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ0Drb0oZwc

On Genetic Roulette see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VTtX6MnEiI

Prop 37 Succeeding see https://www.nationofchange.org/end-monsanto-near-prop-37-succeeding-nations-ban-gmo-crops-1348924495

I can tell you what I think is morally and ethically correct ... but there is no reason you should believe me?

What I suggest is that you view all of the above videos ... do some research on your own ... and then decide for yourself!