"GLOBAL" FAMILY PLANNING? In a recent issue of the "Denver Rocky Mountain News" appeared this headline: "CLINTON TO SEEK FUNDS FOR GLOBAL FAMILY PLANNING."
What?
What the Hell is Clinton doing messing around with family planning in other countries? That's not his business. In fact, where in the Constitution does it give him the power to mess around in family planning in the United States? He's crying about a miniscule (by government spending standards) cut in spending for international family planning programs. He said: "Our commitment to free speech and international family planning is as strong as ever." What commitment? Why? Doesn't he have enough things to do without poking his nose into family planning, be it at home, or especially away?
He also said" "U. S. obligations to the United Nations should not be held hostage 'to an extremist agenda on international planning.' " Extremist agenda? What "extremist agenda?" The only extremist agenda is his agenda to put the authority for family planning into the hands of the United Nations, a body that wants to control not only what is taught to our children in school, but everything else, too. This just reinforced my contention that he intends his next job to be Secretary General of the United Nations. He considers that job as being "President of the World," and he and his cronies are working feverishly to make it that in fact. (Source: Associated Press)
PRISONERS ABUSING PRIVATE DATA: Whose bright idea was it to allow prisoners access to private information such as credit card and Social Security numbers so they could do such things as handling motel reservations by phone, work in telemarketing jobs, selling local newspaper subscriptions, providing information about state parks, and in other prison work programs? Haven't the bureaucrats in the prison systems learned that criminals are criminals? That if you give them access to information that can help them be criminals they will take advantage of it? According to the U. S. General Accounting Office, 1,400 inmates work on contracts that give them access to people's personal information (and this is just the "tip of the iceberg). And they think that these criminals aren't going to use that information to do criminal things? Get real! (Source: Scripps Howard News Service)
YOUR INFORMATION FOR SALE: A private detective said something very interesting in a recent article about finding out information on people: "...[T]he first step in good detective work is obtaining the man's Social Security number. Voter registration rolls often contain those. With that, we can troll through computerized credit histories, civil judgments, liens, bankruptcies and asset lists. It's all public record and all quite legal." All public record? Your Social Security number? The one number that can be the key to snooping into your personal business and "becoming you" to steal from you? The number that, according to the government when that pyramid scheme called Social Security was first foisted upon us would NEVER be used for "general identification?"
Isn't it time we put a stop to this rape of our personal information by making the government keep their solemn promise to never use that number for "general identification?" To force them to make a law to make every private business (including credit reporting companies), state and local governments and the like stop using it as a "key identifier" in their databases? As long as they are allowed to demand this number every time you have any business dealings and you routinely provide it, saying: "What's the difference?" they're going to "reel you in," little by little, until the government, at all levels, has a detailed "dossier" on each one of us that includes everything we do, possibly even how many times we go to the bathroom, and where.
STEALING OUR PROPERTY: In Denver recently, a doctor used his Lexus to go to drug stores and pick up illegal prescriptions, according to DEA. No charges have been filed. But his Lexus has been "confiscated. DEA spokesman Dennis Follett told the court that the absence of criminal charges against the doctor is irrelevant. Irrelevant? Maybe I'm an extremist, but I firmly believe police agencies should not be allowed to just take people's property on the "suggestion" that they "might" be guilty of a crime.
They use the scam that it isn't a "criminal action" but a "civil" one and it is the car that is "guilty of a crime." If you believe that an inanimate object can be guilty of a crime, you're probably "anti-gun" and are ignorant. They contend that stealing someone's property doesn't "punish" that individual. Do you really believe that taking a $50,000 automobile or a million dollar piece of land doesn't "punish the owner," you're worse than ignorant. If making a pauper out of someone, then forcing them to attempt to go to court and get their property back with no money and no property is not punishment as the government seems to think, you've gone beyond ignorance into stupidity.
The RICO Laws need to be repealed. Not "cleaned up." Repealed. The very idea of letting police agencies steal our property, even if convictions are required, violates the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." Think about it: If your spouse used a jointly-owned car to solicit a prostitute and the cops took the car, should you, who not only didn't know about it, but who would be incensed if you found out, lose a several thousand dollar investment because someone else might have committed a crime in it? Should an apartment house owner lose his/her apartment house because someone who lived there was selling dope? (They're trying that right now on Douglas Bruce in Denver) Should you lose your home because your child or grandchild brought some dope into it? Don't laugh. It has already happened. And it will no doubt happen again and again, and it will only get worse as long as we allow the police to steal from us on the flimsiest pretense.
FEAR OF FOSTER CARE: In Kentucky, a young boy got up each morning, put on his clothes, ate breakfast, and went to school. Nothing different about that, is there? Unless you're given one more fact: his mother was dead and he lived with her corpse for a month because he was afraid the "authorities" would put him in foster care. Isn't it amazing that a young boy would be so frightened of being put in foster care that he would live with his mother's corpse for a month to avoid it? Had he had previous experience with foster care? Probably, which may be why the prospect frightened him so. And this is what we do to children who are supposedly "abused" at home.
To read more informative articles by Ray Thomas and others check out the "Information Central" section on my web site.. Just go to https://www.angelfire.com/co2/RayThomas and click on "Information Central."
The first thing you must do to help in this fight is to keep yourself informed as to things the power seekers don't want you to know.
To do that, join my "Forced Altruism List" by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/forcedaltruism and following the instructions to get a daily update on what's happening and a place where you can express your own gripes and frustrations by posting them to the entire List.
You may also read the current issue of the monthly online web based newsletter, "Beyond Common Sense," by going to: http:www.angelfire.com/co2/beyondcommonsense.
If you like what you see, you may subscribe to the Announcement List that notifies you when a new issue comes out by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/beyondcommonsense and following the instructions.
Email -|- HOME