Saturday, February 07, 2009

Super Hero Kings of Lore

From A-Z -- is Obama here? Yes he is, I found him! No, I am not going to share just yet, lets see who you can find!? Look deep into the lists of "Kings of MIND!"

Sheepy



A mythological king is an archetype in mythology. A king is considered a "mythological king" if they are included and described in the culture's mythology. Unlike a fictional king, aspects of their lives may have been real and legendary, or that the culture (through legend and story telling) believed to be real. In the myth, the legends that surround any historical truth might have evolved into symbols of "kinship" and leadership, and expanded with descriptions of spiritual, supernatural or magical chain of events. For example, in legend the king may have magical weapons and fight dragons or other mythological beasts. Their archetypical role is usually to protect and serve the people.

A

A cont.

B

C

D

E

E cont.

F

G

H

I

J

K

L


L

M

N

O

O cont.

P

R

R cont.

S

T

U

V

X

Y

Z

Þ

Friday, February 06, 2009

List of states with passed or pending sovereignty resolutions

I thought we might want to keep a running list of states that have either passed or proposed resolutions reaffirming state sovereignty.

This can serve as one place to track them and a source of information to provide our elected officials who may be considering similar resolutions.

I'll modify this topic as people add more states.
--------------------------------------------
Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/Form...

California (1994 Senate bill passed)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Georgia (1996 Senate resolution)
http://www.legis.state.ga...

Missouri (still in committee, text here)
http://www.dailypaul.com/...

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state...

Oklahoma
http://www.ok-safe.com/fi...

Washington
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/bi...



You gotta know when to hold 'em...

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

Michigan is on board

February 05, 2009

Dear Advocate of Liberty,

On January 22, Michigan Representative Paul E. Opsommer offered three resolutions to the Michigan State House.

These three resolutions are:

2009 House Concurrent Resolution 4 - to affirm Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

* Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on January 22, 2009.

2009 House Concurrent Resolution 5 - to request the State Officers Compensation Commission to recommend a 10 percent legislative salary reduction and to endorse and follow certain performance-based pay structures.

* Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on January 22, 2009.

2009 House Concurrent Resolution 6 - to memorialize the President, the Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security of the United States to change requirements, agreements, and memorandums of understanding relating to the creation of Enhanced Drivers Licenses.

* Referred to the House Transportation Committee on January 22, 2009.

I am asking for immediate volunteers for participation on a team tasked with planning and coordinating support of these three resolutions.

Responsibilities:

1. Monitor the progress of these resolutions in committee.
2. Hold these committees to an on the record vote.
3. Speak at hearings on these Resolutions
4. Plan and coordinate Campaign for Liberty Action in support of these three Resolutions.

We need articulate, focused individuals who are (or can be soon) well versed on one or more of these topics.

It will help to have some people on the team from the Lansing area to attend the committee meetings and provide reports.

For those not on the planning team you can help out in the following ways.

1. Log onto www.michiganvotes.org and start an account (very little info needed for this)
2. Keyword search for HCR 4 and click to add it to your watch list.
3. Look at the members of the committees and find out if any are your reps.
4. Be prepared to put your boots on the ground. We may need to act very fast.

I was hoping to have more time to get our county organizations up and running but this is hard to pass up. There are many groups that we can coordinate with so we won't be alone.

This is why we are here. Lets make a name for ourselves.

Sincerely,

Tony DeMott

Interim Michigan State Coordinator, Campaign for Liberty

For Freedom!

AWESOME!!!

You gotta know when to hold 'em...

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

Grrrrrr

NORTH CAROLINA GROW A PAIR PLEASE.....
Thats about what I told the Gov. when I sent her an email this morning.

Freedom is another way to God...A corrupt government is a straight way to hell.

Add Montana

Update bump for Montana!!

You gotta know when to hold 'em...

Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

Another state added

Washington!

Be sure to update this thread

Be sure to update this thread if you find other states that have done this or are getting ready to.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

The FACTS about Legal Brothels

The FACTS about Legal Brothels

This process began as a RANT as to the fact that when it comes to
anything LEGAL in the Adult Entertainment arena, $20 to $50 is
NOTHING!! If you want to take significant risks than you can take
either of these amounts and those in between to the 'Streets' and see
if you can find someone who may be sick or a thief to accommodate your
desires (whether simple or perverted). Actually even some exotic
dancers would be offended by a $20 tip depending on what type of
'extra' they accommodated you with.

Prostitution is NOT Legal in all of Nevada. It is only legal in
select areas. It is not legal in Las Vegas and it is therefore not
recommended that anyone take any exotic dancers or etc. up on any
'extracurricular activities' as it's not only illegal it could have
far reaching ramifications considering your health etc.

So first things first. The 'working girls' who's title is
'Prostitute' are considered 'Adult Entertainers'. The houses, or
Brothels, where they perform one on one with men, women or even
couples for pay are 'safe zones' for them. These Houses are all
REGULATED by strict codes that must be adhered to. It is quite a big
deal to acquire a Brothel License as it is one of the most coveted
licenses and is difficult to qualify for.

Some of these ladies have husbands at home and some have children as
well. Some of them are working their way through school. Prostitution
is their job and only their job. They all have homes that they go back
to.

All of the ladies are Independent Contractors and therefore must
posses a business license in order to work. They must purchase this
themselves.

All of the ladies must get a Sheriffs card. If you have any sort of a
police record what so ever you cannot get one of these and you cannot
become a Legal Prostitute. The ladies must also pay for this
themselves and it is to be replaced every quarter.

All of the ladies must visit the doctor for health testing initially
and than once a week. This is also their expense. If they do not pass
the 'Health' inspection than they can not become Legal Prostitutes.

The ladies pay a 'daily rent fee' to stay in the House. On top of
that the ladies only receive half (1/2) of what they bid for the
activities, called parties. The rest goes to the house. The house
also claims half (1/2) of any tips the ladies receive.

Now I speak only for some of the 'larger houses'. The ladies stay in
the house and only leave one day a week to purchase supplies for
themselves, go to see the doctor and replace Sheriffs cards if need
be. Most houses have a minimum. This amount can vary but from the 2
houses I've worked at (as a housekeeper and also as a Shift Manager)
the minimum is a very low 3 digit figure. There is absolutely NO
bodily fluid to be exchanged. Condoms are to used for ALL activities.
This is an industry wide standard. There is NO KISSING. If kissing
is desired it a special party called a "Girl Friend Experience" and
the few that do this usually charge a larger amount for it. (this
still requires a condom to be used) If oral activity is desired to be
performed on the lady she will protect herself with what is called a
'dental dam'. This is a very light material that is placed over the
area where contact is to be made. No fingers to be inserted without
them first being covered with rubber gloves etc.

The ladies sell 'activities' and NOT time. Being Independent
Contractors the ladies can charge whatever they want for whatever
activity, however, a minimum accepted bid will get you very little
activity and, if your lucky, about 15 to 20 minutes. The more money is
offered the lady the more likely she will be to offer you a bit of
'time' as a term for the party. Your satisfaction is guaranteed
inasmuch as the ladies will 'work' with the individual to the best of
their ability in an attempt to have the individual achieve orgasm.
Unless otherwise negotiated orgasm ends the party. However, there is
no 'absolute' guarantee as to the activity bringing orgasm.

Being Adult Entertainers ALL of these ladies are in a 30% tax bracket!
It is no matter if they make $13,000 or $40,000 a year the minimum
tax they MUST PAY is 30%.

The 'customers' that visit the Brothels visit for varies reasons.
There are a lot more than just those wanting some trouble free sex.
Some men are widowed or have wives that can no longer be intimate due
to certain circumstances. Some men come more for companionship and
talk. Some men just want to be able to touch an attractive woman. It
is not that uncommon for the ladies to get parties that want to
'massage' THEM! Some men really DO want just a massage for themselves,
and some want that and more. It is not all that uncommon for 'couples'
to visit. Some of the wives or girlfriends want to watch as the
husband parties and some wish to actually participate in threesome
type situations.

Legal Brothels offer trouble free sex. You are 'assured' that the
woman is a healthy and honest (non-criminal) individual. You are also
pretty much assured that this woman won't call you up to bug you in
the morning. Men do NOT cheat because of Legal Prostitutes. They
cheat for other reasons and it is NOT the Prostitutes problem, it is
the one who is cheating and the one who's being cheated on's problem.
This is NOT an ethical issue but is a MORAL one. You can be assured,
however, that if your man cheats on you at a Brothel the woman he
'parties' with wants ONLY his money!! It is extremely unlikely that a
Legal Prostitute is going to attempt to 'STEAL' your man from you. In
the case of the cheating boyfriend or husband it is also assured that
he will not bring home any unhealthy 'surprises' to share with you!

Suck eggs FEDS!!!!!!! LOL from Montana....

Well, it's this way....... fuck you gun grabbers!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we need to get my own State in order here in Nevada.. Shiver me timbers if this holds up I never thought I might consider Montana a place of retirement rest for me bones..But here it is - let's see how the Powers handle this... As you might have noticed several other states have done this and I published them as well and even brought it to our legislature in Nevada as format.( No comment from the people up in Carson City..)

Good Luck Montana!!!!!!!

Sheepy




2009 Montana Legislature

Additional Bill Links     PDF (with line numbers)

HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK

 

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE."

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 2.  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7] is the following:

     (1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

     (2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

     (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

     (4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

     (5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7], the following definitions apply:

     (1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

     (2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

     (3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.

     (4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 4.  Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

     (1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

     (2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

     (3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

     (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 6.  Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 7.  Duties of the attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

     (2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 8.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 7] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 7].

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 9.  Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

- END -

 


Latest Version of HB 246 (HB0246.01)
Processed for the Web on January 13, 2009 (5:27pm)

New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.

Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.

See the status of this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.

 Status of this Bill | 2009 Legislature | Leg. Branch Home
This bill in WP 5.1 | All versions of all bills (WP 5.1 format)
Authorized print version w/line numbers (PDF format)
[
NEW SEARCH ]

Prepared by Montana Legislative Services
(406) 444-3064

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Don't bring your guns to town!! OOPS!!!

Town withdraws effort to ban guns




GINA B. GOOD / PVT
The Bob Ruud Community Center was almost filled to capacity at Tuesday night's meeting where two hotly debated agenda items were the focus of community concern.


RELATED STORY

There was definitely a hot time in the old town Tuesday night, due in part to an item placed on the town board meeting agenda by Pahrump Town Manager Bill Kohbarger that would have barred firearms on town-owned property, in town-owned buildings and at town-sponsored events.

Fired up residents braved the frigid winds blowing down from snow-capped Mt. Charleston as they streamed into the Bob Ruud Community Center 30 minutes early to ensure a seat for the meeting.

By the time the meeting was called to order at 7 p.m., dozens of residents were standing in the back of the hall.

The board's first order of business after the pledge of allegiance was to permanently remove the firearms ban from the agenda, on advice from the town's attorney, Rick Campbell.

He said, "My research shows the town does not have the legal right to enact these types of ordinances." That ended the matter for the board but didn't stop the 200 or so people in attendance from wanting to voice their opinions. Residents waiting to address the board lined up behind the speaker's podium and around the back of the auditorium.

Board Chairman Nicole Shupp tried to cut off the speaking, but attendees protested, wanting the board, and specifically Kohbarger, to know where they stood on the issue.

A man stating he was from District 5 was first to speak. His name was lost in the noise of the crowd as they reacted to the fact they would not be able to speak on the matter. "The colors have been shown," he said. "We are not okay with this. We can see what's coming in this country. The government is getting out of control. When it comes to gun rights and the Second Amendment, we can't give any more ground. We have zero tolerance on this issue."

The speaker paused as the hall broke out in thunderous applause.

"I want get the people whose idea this is fired," he continued. "Gun restriction only hurts the honest citizens. Don't our elected officials recognize this fact?

Referring to the recent murder of a convenience store employee, he added, "When you walk into a convenience store in Pahrump, do you know who's walking in behind you?"

As the woman next in line tried to ask the board a question, Shupp told the gathering, "We are moving on."

The crowd reacted, with several people yelling out, "Let her ask a question."

Shupp used her gavel to quiet the room, again saying the board would move on to the next agenda item, but a male voice from the back of the auditorium called out, "All in favor of hearing the question say 'Aye'."

"Ayes" rang out in the community center.

Shupp was not swayed in her determination to move to the next item. She told those in attendance that the gun ban was permanently removed from the agenda but they were invited to come back and comment at the next regularly scheduled meeting. She said, "We'll be here until midnight if everyone in the room takes a turn at the podium."

People shouted out they wanted to know why a gun ban was on the agenda in the first place, but no answer was forthcoming.

"You are not going to be re-elected madam," called out someone from the back of the hall.

Harley Kulkin addressed Shupp and the board, saying, "If you don't have time to listen to the people who elected you, you shouldn't run for public office."

In a brief interview after the lengthy meeting, Kohbarger, who bore most of the blame from those in attendance, said two residents asked him to put the gun ban on the agenda.

"They didn't show up to back me up on their own item, but I've got broad shoulders," he said.

He said he'd canvassed more than a dozen people after the item was proposed to him and came to the conclusion that guns carried in the open intimidated people.

Before the town attorney advised Kohbarger the town could not enact the ordinance, he'd planned to change the agenda item so those with concealed carry permits would not be prohibited from carrying their firearms, "because those people have training."

CCW holders must pass a background check and weapon handling test.

Monday, February 02, 2009


Lockheed Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA. Photo: Wikimedia

Obama administration to clash with corporations over UFO files

January 31, 6:09 AM
by Michael Salla, Ph.D., Honolulu Exopolitics Examiner



President Obama's January 21 Memoranda to promote Open Government and strengthen the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are intended to release unnecessarily classified national security files. Among the many millions of classified files to ultimately be released, some will concern UFOs and extraterrestrial life. From these releases, UFO enthusiasts and exopolitical researchers hope to find clues into how government policy has been developed. More importantly, FOIA releases will point to where the bulk of the nation's UFO files are located. That's when the Obama administration will run up against corporate control of UFO files and policy.

Testimonial evidence exists that corporations have become the ultimate repository of the nation's UFO secrets. A number of whistleblowers have emerged revealing how corporate control has been achieved. A recently deceased corporate whistleblower revealed how during the mid-1980s, he worked for six months as an archivist for a large aerospace defense contractor based in California.  It was a temporary assignment with his employer at an obscure office building. The archivist found many files dealing with flying saucers and extraterrestrial life. The files contained: "Reports, photos, media materials (tapes, films, video cassettes) and material from crashed saucers." When asked where the files came from he revealed the "materials came from everywhere. CIA, Air Force, Navy, Army, DARPA, NORAD, DoD, FBI, and government officials to name most."

Project Camelot Video of Corporate UFO archivist

If the archivist's testimony is accurate, this means that prior to the mid-1980s UFO files were taken out of the possession of U.S. government agencies and military departments due to security concerns. One reason for this is that the proprietary rights of corporations would enable UFO files to remain hidden from the prying hands of congressmen, and private citizens using the Freedom of Information Act first passed in 1966 and strengthened in 1974.

The above scenario is supported by comments by Ben Rich, former CEO of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works. In hand written responses to questions from John Andrews of the Testor Corporation in 1986, Rich confirmed the existence of both man-made and extraterrestrial UFOs. Most importantly, Rich revealed to Andrews how control of UFO files had slipped from the U.S. military to private corporations. Andrews relayed Rich's responses to questions from UFO investigator William McDonald which confirmed:

There are two types of UFOs -- the ones we build, and ones THEY build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual "Hand-me-downs." The Government knew, and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that information. After a 1969 Nixon "Purge", administration was handled by an international board of directors in the private sector.

Former astronaut, Dr Edgar Mitchell recently confirmed an incident in 1997 where the Head of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff was supplied the code names of UFO related projects, but was denied need-to-know access. The first to report the incident was UFO researcher, Dr Steven Greer, who in 2001 revealed that Admiral Wilson was furious over his failure to gain access. On a July 4, 2008 CNN interview, Dr Mitchell confirmed Greer's version of events when he said that Admiral Wilson "had found the people responsible for the cover-up and for the people who were in the know and were told, I'm sorry, admiral, you do not have need to know here and so, goodbye." A reliable source furthermore revealed to UFO researcher Richard Dolan that Admiral Wilson was frustrated by attorneys of a corporation that denied him access. I interviewed an active duty U.S. Navy officer in October 2008 who confirmed the powerful role of corporations involved in UFO projects.

A number of senior officials in the Obama administration were deeply involved in Clinton administration efforts to disclose files concerning UFOs. If President Obama's January 21 Memoranda are fully implemented, FOIA requests will allow much information about UFOs to emerge. This will give important clues to where the bulk of the nation's UFO files are kept. That is when the Obama administration will run up against powerful corporate interests claiming proprietary control of UFO information and advanced extraterrestrial technology. The Obama administration will ultimately need to confront corporate interests that house UFO files, and controlled UFO policy since the Nixon Administration.

UFO Digest report......



the latest news about UFO sightings and UFO news Today: February 2, 2009      Printer friendly version       Send Page Link to a Friend
Nixon's Dark UFO/ET Legacy
by Ed Komarek


Posted: 12:40 February 2, 2009

Ben Rich, former head of Lockheed's Skunkworks
Ben Rich was former head of Lockheed's Skunkworks.
Everyone is familiar with the damage Nixon's Watergate scandal did to the United States but there is an even darker legacy yet to surface into the public domain. This darker legacy revolves around Nixon's secret extraterrestrial policies. These secret policies are turning out to be catastrophic for both global society and the global environment.

I believe that the UFO/ET community has been slow to grasp the significance of statements made by the late Ben Rich, former head of Lockheed's Skunkworks, and aviation engineer Bill Uhouse. They both have stated that there had been a Nixon purge and privatization of extraterrestrial policy and exploitation of extraterrestrial resources in the 1960s. This took extraterrestrial policy out of the hands of both government and the military and put in the hands of industry and its CIA allies. (See previous articles www.ufodigest.com/news/1008/corporation-x.html)

In my opinion the Nixon purge and privatization of United States extraterrestrial policy in the 1960s set back the UFO/ET disclosure process at least thirty years and suppressed beneficial extraterrestrial diplomatic initiatives by the State Department, military and other actors. The positive benefit of privatization was the secret efficient exploitation of extraterrestrial resources for both military and public use. The downside was that this positive benefit has been far outweighed by a continuation of the UFO cover-up and an extremely damaging industry-CIA profit based extraterrestrial policy.

In discussions involving an active duty naval officer by Shawn and Clay Pickering over the past year on the Open Minds Forum it appears that both the military and the State Department are reasserting control over extraterrestrial policy from private industry and the CIA. The military UFO Working Group and the State Department seem to have taken the lead in attempting to regain control over extraterrestrial diplomatic initiatives.

The overall situation seems to be continuing to improve with the incoming Obama administration where the Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) is well represented. It is also well know that the Clintons had apparently been shut out of briefings involving extraterrestrial reality when Bill Clinton was in Office and so may not be complicit in the UFO cover-up. A further positive sign is that Hillary Clinton is now head of the State Department and a pro-disclosure John Podesta is closely allied with Bill and Hillary. www.presidentialufo.com

According to the active duty naval officer know as Source A, several extraterrestrial races unified by a race that he calls the conformers are intent on making themselves known to world populations by 2017. All these developments seem to be creating a perfect storm that may push disclosure forward rapidly in the next several years. (See previous article www.ufodigest.com/news/0109/naval-officer.html )

Is it possible that we pro-disclosure advocates and activists inside and outside of government many no longer find ourselves fighting an anti-disclosure tide? Is it possible that the tide is about to change to support our efforts rather than hinder us? Perhaps Nixon's dark extraterrestrial legacy may finally be coming to an end.

the latest news about UFO sightings and UFO news Today: February 2, 2009      Printer friendly version       Send Page Link to a Friend

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Donated by Sol

Yes, I like the numbers, someone out there needs to check these to see if it is near correct.. feedback anybody?

Sheepy,


This is quite interesting.  I didn't try to verify any of the numbers (seems ok) but it's the proposal I like. 

"The  Proposal"

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.  The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.  Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks. 

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
 
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies.  It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.  It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established.  (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.  Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay.  These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff. 

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff. 

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members. 

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members. 

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.  Merge the current congressional retirement plan with Social Security to provide more funding for SSA and let our Congress look forward to retirement just as their constituents do.

  

IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.