No More Spying On Citizens Who Aren’t Suspected Of A Crime

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to No More Spying On Citizens Who Aren’t Suspected Of A Crime

  1. Chuck says:

    Keep it coming! The world should be reminded about this snake oil salesman!

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Slow down as they say. Here’s some quotes:
    “[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
    2000 passed. Didn’t happen. Lol. Or this:
    “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
    2000 passed. Didn’t happen. Lol. Or this:
    “By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world.. will be in famine.” -Professor Peter Gunter, Earth Day 1970
    2000 passed. Didn’t happen. Lol.
    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the IPCC

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    From notrickszone:

    It seems that it is beginning to dawn on some of Europe’s mainstream media: the transition to green energies is turning out to be ten or even 100 times more expensive than expected.

    1 euro costs, 3 cents benefit

    First the nachrichten discusses what could be the most economically sensible way of reducing CO2 emissions. So far the measures that have been implemented have been both effective and ineffective: Effective at costing lots of money, ineffective at actually reducing CO2 emissions. The nachrichten writes that the most effective policy to reduce carbon emissions may be a CO2 tax, but Australia has just repealed it because of its sheer unpopularity. The Austrian nachrichten then writes about the astronomical costs and the utter ineffectivity of climate policy so far: Already the EU 2020 strategy costs 185 billion euros annually. By the end of the century the costs will run to 15 trillion euros. With this, according to the UN IPCC, the global temperature increase will be lowered 0.05°C. For every euro that the EU pays into climate protection, it prevents 3 cents worth of damage from climate change. Lomborg writes: ‘That is not rational policy!’”

    Included in the article were points made by and a picture of Richard Tol, and a commenter said this: “Tol needs a comb. But we’ll take him as he is!” Lol.

    • Heh. Maybe some commenters here will follow suit and take Goddard as is.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Steve is just fine. I like his wit.

        The Progressives insist that we must fight like ‘Gentleman’ while they are allowed no holds barred street fighting. It is about time someone pointed these things out and quit with the “nicey nicey we will keep it to nitpicking the science” in effective method.

        But as _Jim said I am an ’emotional female’ and therefore will go for the eyes with the claws or the … with a knee if I find myself forced into a fight. Forget the “nicey nicey” it only prolongs the fight and gets you hurt.

  4. redc1c4 says:

    you miss the point: he suspects ALL of us for one crime or another.

    unless you’re white, of course, in which case he knows you’re already guilty.

    • Look, he wouldn’t be spying on you if you weren’t suspected of crimes. Just plead guilty & you’ll be treated with the same dignity that musselmanns treat each other.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Mark Stoval had a good essay on that: The state says you are a criminal

      Are you a criminal? The state says that you are. Harvey A. Silverglate’s Three Felonies A Day says in his book that federal prosecutors invent creative interpretations of statutes and by doing so create new felonies out of thin air. So many felonies that the average person in this country commits three felonies a day….

  5. pesce9991 says:

    Funny how when Bush started doing it no Republicans objected. They supported it and shrugged it off with “I’ve got nothing to hide”

    I am angry as anybody that Obama changed his tune once he got into office. At the same time, however, every president, regardless of party, makes promises they don’t keep. Most famous was HW Bush’s “Read my lips, no new taxes”. I never made much of that because the economy never stays the same and new solutions are needed to solve what problems arise. HW just should not have said it because it came back to haunt him. But then, he was running for election.

    • Funny how Obama cynically and intentionally lied about everything in order to get into office, and progressives are still too stupid to figure it out.

    • geran says:

      P, you get it wrong again. Bush One was NOT a conservative. He was a moderate. Moderates are in the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” category.

      Translation: They have no core values.

      I always said, choosing Bush One for VEEP was one of the worst mistakes Reagan ever made. (Bush One set us up for the phony Clinton.)

      Oh yeah, politicians can make mistakes, but Leftists always believe GOVERNMENT is infallible. Live and learn, or not.

      • pesce9991 says:

        I disagree. Poppy Bush was a conservative. Reagan was a conservative. Then over the next 10 or more years the Republican party shifted to radicalism. My father, a Republican all his life, would be horrified if he saw what happened to the party in the new millennium .
        Ronald Reagan would be shocked to see today’s Republicans. Even though you raised him to exalted status he would probably disown you.

        I wonder if you see the damage that radicalism in your party has cost you? It is unlikely we will see another Republican president for a long time. You can get only so far spewing hate against the president on the air, gerrymandering, obstructing voting and lying before the people want nothing to do with you. I think there will be some nasty surprises for you come November.

        • cdquarles says:

          He77 no. GHW Bush was not conservative. He was a Progressive in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller. Look in the mirror, bub, if you want to see radicalism. The Progressives have that in spades and clubs.

        • pesce9991 says:

          You have confirmed my belief that your ability to infer political tendencies is nil.

        • philjourdan says:

          Given your other prognostications, your “beliefs” have yet to be correct. So they can be ignored.

        • philjourdan says:

          Bush 41 was never a conservative. He was always a NE Republican (think of Jumpin Jim Jeffords). I love how liberals tell us what Reagan would do and think when they vilified him during his life. And never learned what he was about. I guess you can sum up Reagan with one of his quotes: Government is not the solution to the problems, government IS the problem.

          Until you understand that, you will always be wrong when you go outside of your talking points (and always wrong with your talking points).

    • Gail Combs says:

      I have zero use for Bush either.

      You are making the mistake of thinking Bush and Obama are on opposite sides politically. They are not. They are BOTH FOR Global Government.

      June 2007 – The European Union and the United States recently announced the signing of a Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration at a summit in Washington. Describing the agreement as “a statement of the importance of trade”, President Bush, speaking at the post-summit press conference, claimed that it was “a commitment to eliminating barriers to trade” and “a recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the better off our people become.”

      As those in the UK are finding out the UK is no longer a sovereign state but a vassal state of the EU and the citizens were never even aware of what was happening. Vernon Coleman: Was Britain taken into the EU illegally…

      Pascal Lamy tapped for EU president and former Director-General of the World Trade Organization made it clear that ‘Global Governance’ and the removal of Sovereignty from nations has been the goal of world leaders since the 1930’s

      …The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

      All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence….

      So they Failed to find a clear reason for the peons to give up their rights. Enter Global Warming and Environmentalism:

      …Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers….

      …finance is not the only area where domestic issues are turning into global concerns. Countries claim the right to use national resources as they see fit. But the byproduct can be greenhouse gases or disappearing fish stocks or raw material shortages — which impact the interconnected world we share….

      Pascal Lamy holds up the EU, with its bureaucrats far removed from the control of the citizens as a template of ‘Global Governance’ Global Governance: Lessons from Europe: What can the world learn about global governance from the diplomatic model of the European Union?

      …It was more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems. And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world.” His assessment was as valid then as it is now…..

      Note that the EU started out as a “Trade Organization” just as the WTO has started out as a “Trade Organization” However The FDA during Bush’s Admin said:

      International Harmonization

      The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.

      The WTO and the OIE wanted US farmers regulated so guess what, despite the wishes of Americans we now have farmers regulated. Those regulations will cause the loss of most if not all independent farmers as similar regulations did in Europe. See The Battle to Save the Polish Countryside: Julian Rose exposes the scandal of EU’s deliberate policy to get rid of family farms for the benefit of the corporations and gives a personal account of his battle with the GMO dragon that threatens to devastate rural Poland

      This leaves the Ag Cartel that formulated the WTO agreement on Ag in control of our food supply. The WTO and the Politics of GMO

      I am not against the idea of GMOs, I just do not like Monsanto’s tactics and think genetic monoculture is an idiotic policy especially when combined with a Just-In-Time, no grain reserve policy.

      • pesce9991 says:

        I think we are in agreement on a number of issues you bring up in your post. What nonsense is this that makes anyone think we can force a common constitution on a world of different and sovereign nations? I was amused by the question “so who’s going to lead it?” Ha! Even Jesus would not apply for that position.(I mean that lightheartedly not offensively).

        In clothing, ‘one size fits all’ usually means nobody’s going to be happy wearing it.

    • Gail Combs says:


      May I suggest you read E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” It explains why the ordinary citizen always is the one to get shafted no matter who is in control of the US government.

      A rather telling quote from Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

      The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

      The bourgeoisie [Middle class] has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

      HMMMmmm no wonder some scientists like the idea of Marxism and being “honored and looked up to with reverent awe.”

      And another quote from Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw. He was Co-founder of the Fabian Society that set up the London School of Economics that trains world leaders in politics, commerce and finance like George Soros and David Rockefeller.

      The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?” ~ Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296

      We also have the outlook of Stalin:

      When he [Josef Stalin] became Comrade Number One, his main goal was to consolidate power. Of course, he used Marxism-Leninism to explain this move. Tom West described Stalin’s outlook:

      Only one man, the wisest and strongest of all, can be entrusted with the task of building socialism. And this man must not flinch from inflicting mass killings, deliberate famines, and torture involving the suffering and deaths of many millions of people. The Wise Man must employ whatever means he deems necessary to root out the millions of enemies of the people so that he can lead men to perpetual peace, happiness, and total communization.

      From the book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

      Stalin’s idea of attacking the ‘bourgeoisie’ aka the Middle Class is echoed by Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972. Strong wrote the introduction to the book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:

      “This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”

      Strong echoed those words in the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992. He said that industrialized countries have:

      “Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

      Rosa Koire, a Liberal California bureaucrat outline the feudal villages planned for us:

      Your government is a corporatocracy, a new authoritarian state in the process of consolidating your output into a more controllable, exploitable channel. The reason you are being misled by your government and told that all of this is good for you, is because there is no profit in managing a mass uprising….

      Your government now has technological capabilities that far exceed anything ever seen on the planet to this date. You are in the midst of the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world. The pretty pastel vision of life in a Smart Growth development is a manipulation, a mask. In fact these plans are designed to restrict your freedom of movement and choice.

      Transit villages (formerly known as cities) will be restricted to having only the population that can be supported by food grown within a 100 mile radius (called a ‘food shed’). Food sheds will dictate where you can live and when you can change your residence. Calculations, such as those done recently at Cornell University, will determine how much food can be grown within that area and then the Transit Village population will be limited to the number of people who can be fed by that land (click on the blue to go to the Cornell website). It is reasonable to expect rationing based on this mode. If you want to move to that village you will have to apply and wait for an opening.

      The recent crash/depression is world-wide and was engineered to destroy expectations of long-term economic employment. If people have no expectation of long-term employment they cannot plan for the future, and cannot comfortably buy a home and contract for a 30 year mortgage. They cannot create community with long-term neighbors. With long-term employment plummeting there is a shift to a more transient life-style which is more conducive to living in Smart Growth Transit Villages: condominiums and apartments. Private property ownership and financial security will be phased out through excessive regulations and land use restrictions.

      Do you see? According to ICLEI, if you only have one car or no car your disposable income will be at least 20% higher. Does this mean that you will have 20% more money to spend? No. It means that corporations can lower your wages by 20% and still sell you the same number of goods. A compression of the economy with a more efficient outcome for big business. Concentrating populations into urban areas where they can be easily monitored, where their usage of energy can be regulated, and where their consumption of goods can be restricted, is a goal of UN Agenda 21….

      What we are seeing is the return of a two class system of Aristos and serfs. The International Monetary Fund has even documented it.

      Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence: Finance & Development, September 2012, Vol. 49, No. 3

      New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012).

      This is not a natural distribution of wealth. Pareto 80/20 rule says 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. In 1906 an Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, discovered that 20% of the Italian population owned 80% of the nation’s wealth. Further studies revealed that The Pareto Principle, as it became known, affects us all in every aspect of life.

      This article: 29 Statistics About Extreme Income Inequality In America That Will Blow Your Mind documents the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few. But beware

      ….If you believe in the U.S. Constitution and in the republic that our founding fathers established, then the very high concentrations of wealth and power in our society today should greatly concern you. Income inequality is not a “Democrat” or a “Republican” issue. A vibrant, thriving middle class should be a goal all of us can embrace.

      But I have a feeling a whole lot of “Democrats” and a whole lot of “Republicans” were deeply offended by this article.

      Senator Daniel Webster in a speech over the reauthorization of the Second National Bank of the U.S. in 1832, explained how the concentration of wealth is done:

      A disordered currency is one of the greatest of evils. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy. And it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is one of the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation: These bear lightly the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with fraudulent currencies and robberies committed with depreciated paper.

      • pesce9991 says:

        I took me a while to get through your post but it was interesting. I am not a globalist nor a conformist so I am against this New World order nonsense.

        I don’t know if you intended Rosa Koire to be an example of all that is evil with globalization but reading about her she is absolutely a raging critic against it. She conducts gatherings of people regardless of party identity and wants them to join in her baary stuffttle against UNAgenda21.

        This is scary stuff and I hope all will take heed and realize if we don’t voice our opposition we’ll live, or our grandchildren will live to regret.

    • philjourdan says:

      Still stuck on Republican=Conservative. I guess some people are incapable of learning.

      And lying is wrong regardless. But at least SOME republicans do not stomach it from their leaders. Democrats cheer it on.

  6. I am angry as anybody that Obama changed his tune once he got into office.

    Another rube self-identifies.

  7. Eric Simpson says:

    And no more this sh!t:
    Here’s a story involving the Dept of “Homeland Security.” DHS Raid Home To Seize Land Rover For Violation Of EPA Regulations. This is asset forfeiture, and not part of the drug war, but of unsuspecting people’s property, valued at $65,000! Utterly insane. Here’s a video from the above link:

    • cdquarles says:

      The ‘Drug War’, dating back to the early 20th Century, made this possible. You know, to control ‘organized’ crime, which the Progressives created by criminalizing sale, use and possession of ‘drugs’, initially those favored by ‘the Other’ then taking on one of the most ancient of these, ethanol. When Alcohol Prohibition backfired, then they took on hemp derivatives. The rest is, as they say, history.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s