Did Air Strike Hit Imam Tied to Fort Hood Shootings?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Shill By Any Other Name, Is Still A Shill

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!!

December 24, 2009

By Mark Matheny

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings, and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity." -David Rockefeller, June 5, 1991 speaking at a Bilderberg Meeting in Sand Germany

When I was growing up, there were saturday cartoons which I would wake up eagerly to watch. In between the different cartoons there would be instructional cartoons-one of which would teach valuable lessons to children all over the country who would be watching. One phrase taught by a super hero would be "Knowing is half the Battle!" Apparently, if we at least knew of a problem, we would then be able to work at a solution.

In today's world, this lesson holds very true. If a doctor can come to know of a problem and correctly identify it, he can then begin to determine a solution whether it be medicine or surgery. In the same way our government can solve problems if they know what the root of the problem is.

There are those in high places, however, who have a plan to consolidate economic and political power on a global scale, who also want to do so while withholding this knowledge from the masses in order to prevent the masses from stopping such a drastic move.

Those Elitists bent on such a dramatic change on a global scale know that to do so, they would have to control the media on a world-wide scale in order to prevent the true agenda of a one world government from coming to the knowledge of the masses.

David Rockefeller, among other elitists knew that they would have to control the media in order to shade or cover their true goal of world domination. News and journalism in its purest form should seek to inform the public so that the public then can take some action to prepare, or correct some problem when it develops. News is meant to inform us in an unbiased way, so that we may have a clear view of the events that are shaping our world. It is often said that "Knowledge is power", and this is the reason that those who have a desire to control us also have a desire to control the media.

Of course there are many news agencies to choose from now days, and so the average American feels confident they are being well informed about the world around them. But are we being informed if those many news agencies are all under the unbrella of a dominating cartel? Over the past decade there have been several mergers that have taken place so that a majority of the News and Entertainment media are now under the control of a few transnational conglomerates. Companies such as AOL Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Viacom, and Sony.

According to an article in The New American,

Passive media consumers generally don't understand the extent to which the cartel limits their options. For example, Viacom owns both the CBS and UPN television networks, as well as Showtime, MTV, Paramount Pictures, and Simon & Schuster Books. Disney owns the ABC, A&E, and Lifetime networks, co-owns ESPN, and operates Disney's well-known motion picture properties. AOL Time Warner is not only the world's largest internet service provider, but also owns the CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO networks, Warner Brother studios, and a host of publishing ventures. - The New American, Vol. 19, No.3 February 10, 2003, pg 9 article: 'No Channels,No Choice'.

Is it any wonder that we hear the same news on every channel we turn to? Try it sometime- turn to a news channel and watch the main three stories they cover, and then turn to another station, and you will more than likely hear about the same three stories. Sometimes they are almost word for word.

As  a salesman, I used to drive to people's homes in order to sell a product to them. I would have a prepared presentation in which I would slowly convince them that my company, product, and price were all the solution to their problem. It would be important for me to gain their trust, and to make them aware of the problems they were currently experiencing. I would in effect present a 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' presentation in order to win them as a customer.

Throughout the presentation, I would get them to commit to various aspects of my company, my product, and ultimately to my final price. The presentation would usually take 2 or three hours, and if I took shortcuts in my pitch, I would usually walk out empty handed.

Today, in the news world we also have salesmen (and women) who come into our homes in order to sell us on an idea or issue. Usually these issues in some way, shape, or form lead us to side with the establishment's goal of global governance. These salesmen and women are refered to as "shills."

What is a shill- you may ask?

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used. -Wikipedia

 News broadcasters such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, along with others are on TV to guide us through so-called "journalism" (fair and balanced) in order to fully inform us. They say things like " The Spin stops here- cause we're looking out for you." But the question is, are they really looking out for us- or are they pushing the agenda of the corporations and the military industrial complex, who inturn are pushing the policies of "think tanks" such as the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission who were established by elitists such as David Rockefeller, and Zbigiew Brzezinski?

Topics such as War, Taxes, Flu vaccinations, and  Stimuluses are shown to the public as vital to support in order to keep a "crisis from becoming a catastrophe", yet they won't tell the public that these very same issues are costing us trillions of dollars, and are all unnecessary if we would just abide by the constitution. Wars wouldn't be long and drawn out, (if they were even necesssary in the first place), and if necessary, they would be declared by congress and settled quickly, as a true budget would not support these current wars. Taxes would not be hidden in the form called inflation because we wouldn't have a Central Bank called the "Federal Reserve" that could print money out of thinair in the first place! But yet the 'spin doctors' on the nightly news teach us that "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery" when they portray the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary to our national security! Tapping our phones and monitoring every transaction, or internet site we look at is somehow keeping us free!

Here are a few more definitions which will clarify the true job of a shill in various ways:

 Shills in journalism

The term is applied metaphorically to journalists or commentators who have vested interests in or associations with parties in a controversial issue. Usually this takes the form of a show or network pretending to be offering news when in fact they are simply repeating talking points offered by a political party. Journalistic ethics require full disclosure of conflicts of interest, and of any interference by other parties with the reportage.  -Wikipedia

Critical shills

Sometimes shills may be used to downplay legitimate complaints posted by users on the Internet. See Spin (public relations) and sock puppet (internet). -Wikipedia

Spin (public relations)

In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

Politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while using spin tactics to manipulate public opinion. -Wikipedia

"Burying bad news": announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular one.

State-run media in many countries also engage in spin by only allowing news stories that are favorable to the government while censoring anything that could be considered critical.

To Shill
(pejorative) To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly. -Wictionary
 

• 1996, Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World,

Today there are even commercials in which real scientists, some of considerable distinction, shill for corporations. They teach that scientists too will lie for money. As Tom Paine warned, inuring us to lies lays the groundwork for many other evils. -Wictionary

You will notice a few things about all of these shills in the news, whether they are on the Left or the Right, the all try to discredit key issues that are important to those who seek after true liberty. Some of these issues are:

• The truth about 9/11: They will call those who wish to have another investigation (those refered to as 9/11 truthers)  wackos, nuts, racists, and terrorists in effect. Often times they will invite "9/11 truthers" on TV, only to yell at and discredit them on the air, so making all those who would want an investigation look un-American, psychotic, or extremist.
• National Healthcare: Again those who would oppose this issue are painted as uncaring towards the poor, or out for insurance companies and special interests groups. Those who speak out at the Town Hall meetings are refered to as terrorists, Nazis and even "astroturf" (Nancy Pelosi said this). One thing that is never mentioned by either side is whether congress even has the right to be nationalizing healthcare!Those who attend the "Tea Parties" are called "Tea Baggers" (a sexually explicit term used by media shills to make fun of, and to discredit the people bringing up real issues that the astablishment wishes to avoid). 
• The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: News Agencies such as Fox News are really hardcore about supporting the "war on Terror" and insist that it is patriotic to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to "preserve democracy." (Notice too, that it's a 'Democracy' that we are protecting and not the 'Republic' that we pledged alliance to.) If you are against the wars, then you are unpatriotic. When Ron Paul spoke of "blowback" because of the foreign policy of America towards Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, Rudy Guilliani tried to make Ron Paul look as though he was un-American. The networks covering the elections all seemed to marginalize Ron Paul because he was against the agenda of the "Neo-cons" and the military industrial complex. The 'spin' here is again, "War is Peace."
• On the issue of Obama's elidgibility: Here is another issue that will not be touched with a ten-foot pole by the media shills. If it is ever mentioned at all, it is painted in such a ridiculous hue of sarcasm that those questioning this very relevant issue are also painted as racist, or as sore losers because a democrat won the office. The term "Birthers" is used for the group of people concerned about the status of Barack Obama, and is spoken in a derogatory manner in order to downplay the severity of the implications behind the question of Obama's elidgiblity. 

Burying the news is another tool of the shill. A good example of this was the day Michael Jackson died. Every media channel covered the event as if the President was the subject instead of a singer. All the while, the Pope was giving a speech calling for a "World Economic Order"!! How many of the average people on the street knew anything about the Pope's speech? I'm confident in saying that a majority knew nothing about it (and probably still to this day know nothing of it), but they can tell you all about the pomp and ceremony that went on with Michael Jackson's funeral arrangements, tribute, etc.

Another example was a story that was published on December 26, 2001 in an Egyptian paper about the death and the funeral of Osama Bin Laden!!!! How many news agencies covered this in America? How many Americans are there that have ever seen this article? This of course, if true, would have spoiled the plan of finding Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan would it not? What excuse would the elitists used for invading Afghanistan then? Whether or not the account is true- wouldn't it have been on the front cover of the papers if news such as this would have somehow furthered the cause of those plotting for a "New World Order"?

Even the whole Global Warming Scandal was pushed by shills who covered up evidence to push the agenda of Global Warming in order to bring all nations under a carbon tax and regulations that will in effect lead to Global Government. Here's what Carl Sagan said once in 1996, but describes the 'ClimateGate' shill tactic well:

1996, Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World,




Today there are even commercials in which real scientists, some of considerable distinction, shill for corporations. They teach that scientists too will lie for money. As Tom Paine warned, inuring us to lies lays the groundwork for many other evils. -Wictionary

Often, those who are considered to be conservatives or Republican will often get their news from Fox News, which is considered to be a right leaning alternative to CNN and other establishment news. However, it is important to note that Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News is the showpiece property of News Corp, a transnational  media empire owned by Australian expatriate - and CFR member - Rupert Murdoch. The $38 billion Murdoch global empire (which includes the New York Post and half dozen major news publishers) was built on a foundation of Fleet Street tabloids in London. Fox Broadcasting Company's primetime entertainment programs rely heavily on titillation and "edgy" sexual content. ...Conservatives and liberals alike regard Murdoch's Fox News Channel as a right leaning alternative to CNN and the network evening news.....Fox News boasts the motto, "We report-you decide," which many percieve as  a commitment to independence and objectivity. But that credo can also be viewed as a variation on the New York Times' motto, "All the News that's Fit to Print," after all, who decides what is reported by Fox News? Do Murdoch's Insider connections and calculations of corporate self-interest play a gatekeeping role in defining Fox's news coverage? Murdoch's media track record abroad demonstrates that he's very much in the business of dispensing managed media. - The New American, Vol. 19, No.3, February 10, 2003, pg 11, article: Many Channels,No Choice.

This is why it is so important to understand that there are alternatives to the establishment news. The internet is a very important source of news to any American who wants to awaken out of the trance that the controlled media has been keeping them in. There are many great sites that you can get your news from on the internet. You can read multiple versions of an event or issue so that you can judge the veracity of an issue, and determine the motive of the source. In this way, you will become an informed American who can properly defend himself against the onslaught of Shills that are out to get the masses to follow them. It reminds me of the fairy tale of the "Pied Piper", who played a sweet melody and led all the rats out of the city to their demise.

So whether they are called Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, or Republican-
 A Shill By Any Other Name, Is Still A Shill.

Mark Matheny.

Glenn Beck HATES 911 Victim's Family Members!

December 24, 2009
Mark Matheny

For all the 'Glenn Beck' lovers out there, you need to hear what he had to say on his radio show. 9/11 was a tragic event, and the families of those murdered that day are still grieving and looking for answers to the event that happened 8 years ago. Glenn beck has shown his true colors about these families. He is such a hypocrite! If you are in the 9-12 movement- get out now! We don't need Glenn Beck and his double speak! Even Keith Olberman got it right in exposing Glenn Beck for the Schill that he is! (Olberman is one too however).
Liberty and freedom will do better with the grass roots people- people who aren't bought and paid for!!! And to all the 9/11 families- We love you and support you. One day the truth about the attacks will be uncovered!!!!

See Also: To Heck With Beck

DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules Changes in Reid Health Bill

2009 Heritage.org

Posted December 23rd, 2009 at 2.03pm in Health Care.


Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has pointed observers to a problematic section of the health care legislation now before the Senate that proposes (in Section 3403) to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Board. He rightly observes that the bill language makes it virtually impossible to repeal that part of the legislation, thereby attempting to bind future Congresses.

DeMint is right about all this, but—having read through the legislation—by my read it is actually much worse than has been suggested, and much more destructive of the rule of law and democratic governance.

The purpose of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” (p. 1001) Its proposals to reduce that spending “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” (p. 1004) (And the legislation won’t pay for abortions – yea, right.)

But the Board’s proposals “shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans . . . that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) for basic coverage.” (Hmmm . . . . Sounds like rather than directly rationing health care, they just won’t pay for it.)

Setting the rationing questions aside for a moment, what is most disturbing is the process by which these cost-savings dictates made by an unelected board of experts will be implemented regardless of the majority opinion of the law-making branch of government. So much for the rule of law.

This Board—which is appointed by the President, is not required to hold any public meetings or take any testimony and cannot be disbanded except by a 3/5 vote of Congress—transmits a legislative proposal that implements its recommendations to the President, who shall immediately submit such proposal to Congress. (p 1011)

On the day on which the proposal is submitted it shall be introduced in Congress (p 1017) and referred to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives (p. 1018), despite any standing rules of the Senate (p 1019). If the committee does not act fast enough, the bill shall be discharged from (ie forced through) that committee (1019).

And then there is this zinger:

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board” if the bill, resolution, amendment or report does not satisfy the requirements of the legislation.

And here is DeMint’s troubling discovery (p 1020):

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection” other than by three-fifths of the Members of Congress.

The section then goes on to promulgate the rules of debate in the Senate and House for considering the legislation, and that if the one House passes the legislation the other “shall consider the bill introduced in that House through all stages of consideration up to, but not including, passage.” No more pesky committee mark-ups and amendments.

If there is any doubt that this section of the Healthcare Bill changes the rules of the Senate and the House in violation of clear constitutional language guaranteeing each House’s determination of the rules of its proceedings (Article I, Section 5), consider this Orwellian language (p. 1028):

RULES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES.—

This subsection and subsection (f)(2) are enacted by Congress—



‘(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of bill under this section, and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and



(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

Sooo, . . . the Secretary shall not implement the Board’s “recommendations” but only if Congress follows all these new rules and goes to great length to pass another law.

But wait! Perhaps the bureaucrats can implement the law anyway(p. 1031):

NO AFFECT ON AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to affect the authority of the Secretary to implement any recommendation contained in a proposal or advisory report under this section to the extent that the Secretary otherwise has the authority to implement such recommendation administratively.

Paragraph 3 is the exception under which Congress enacts legislation against the specific Board recommendation. Given the wide latitude by which bureaucrats wield their administrative authority, and the looseness of this language, the legislation could be read to give them a green light to proceed administratively despite congressional disapproval. And, just to make it clear they mean to rule us, there shall be no administrative or judicial review of this decision.

It has become commonplace for Congress to pass massive pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation; it is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are promulgated by administrative agencies in the guise of “regulations”—a form of rule by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.

This bureaucracy is so overwhelming that it is unclear whether modern presidents actually can be held constitutionally responsible for “tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Presidents now appoint numerous policy “czars”—megabureaucrats operating outside of the existing cabinet structure—to forward their objectives over the inertia of their own administrations.

And now, in this new form of administrative governance, unelected and unresponsible experts who are beyond legislative control and the rule of law will tell us what is good for us and the rules by which we will shall live our lives.

This legislation is not about health care, but about placing one sixth of the American economy—and some of the most important and personal decisions in our lives—under the permanent control of government. This section of the legislation—and the operations of this Independent Medicare Advisory Board—is a prime example of the autocratic rule that is increasingly overtaking us.

Is Usama Alive?

December 23, 2009
 Mark Matheny
 A relative of Usama Bin Laden is held up in Iran, apparently under some type of house arrest. According to the broadcast it's not known whether Usama Bin Laden is even alive. Some reports have shown that there was a funeral held in Egypt for Bin Laden as far back as December of 2001.

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:


al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633


News of Bin Laden's Death

and Funeral 10 days ago



Islamabad -

A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

'Climategate'

Phelim Mcaleer on Fox News talks about the myth of Global warming.

Senate health bill clears final hurdle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats cleared the last 60-vote hurdle on President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul on Wednesday, virtually ensuring final passage of its version of the biggest health policy changes in four decades.


For a third straight day, Democrats mustered the 60 party-line votes needed to keep the healthcare bill on track for passage on Thursday over unified Republican opposition.

The vote on final approval, which requires a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, is slated for 7 a.m. EST on Christmas Eve on Thursday.

Passage in the Senate would set up potentially tough negotiations in January to iron out differences with the House of Representatives, which approved its own version on November 7.

"It's been a long, hard road for all of us," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters. "We stand a few short steps from the most significant finish line we've had in Congress for many decades."

Read more

William Jasper & Alex Newman on Alex Jones Tv 1 of 4: Latest From Copenhagen NWO Central

Watch here

The Weimar Hyperinflation: Could it Happen Again?

The August Review: Globalist Research Center

By Ellen Brown 

May 20, 2009



 

 
 
 
“It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightning it struck. No one was prepared. The shelves in the grocery stores were empty. You could buy nothing with your paper money.” (1933 interview)


Some worried commentators are predicting a massive hyperinflation of the sort suffered by Weimar Germany in 1923, when a wheelbarrow full of paper money could barely buy a loaf of bread. An April 29 editorial in the San Francisco Examiner warned:

“With an unprecedented deficit that’s approaching $2 trillion, [the President’s 2010] budget proposal is a surefire prescription for hyperinflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing a spending spree that could very well turn America into the next Weimar Republic.”1

In an investment newsletter called Money Morning on April 9, Martin Hutchinson pointed to disturbing parallels between current government monetary policy and Weimar Germany’s, when 50% of government spending was being funded by seigniorage – merely printing money.2 However, there is something puzzling in his data. He indicates that the British government is already funding more of its budget by seigniorage than Weimar Germany did at the height of its massive hyperinflation; yet the pound is still holding its own, under circumstances said to have caused the complete destruction of the German mark. Something else must have been responsible for the mark’s collapse besides mere money-printing to meet the government’s budget, but what? And are we threatened by the same risk today? Let’s take a closer look at the data.
Read the entire story

Is the European police state going global?

SPPI BLOG
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Ugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.


Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.

Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.

Outside, in the real world, it was snowing, and a foretaste of the Brave New World being cooked up by “world leaders” in their fantasy-land was already evident. Some 20,000 observers from non-governmental organizations – nearly all of them true-believing Green groups funded by taxpayers – had been accredited to the conference.However, without warning the UN had capriciously decided that all but 300 of them were to be excluded from the conference today, and all but 90 would be excluded on the final day.

Of course, this being the inept UN, no one had bothered to notify those of the NGOs that were not true-believers in the UN’s camp. So Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us.

In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.

Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.

He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.

I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.”

In fact, the phone was in my coat pocket, where my hand had been at the time of the assault. The ambulance crew led me away and laid me down under a blanket for 20 minutes to get warm, plying me with water and keeping me amused with some colorfully colloquial English that they had learned.

I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying.

The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason.

To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost.

Nor does this incident, and far too many like it, reflect the slightest credit on Denmark. We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference.

However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve.

It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy.

A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic.

While we still have one or two statesmen of his caliber, there is hope for Europe and the world. Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum.

However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.

He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.”

Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.

California City's Police to Wear Head-Mounted Cameras

Fox News.com
Sunday, December 20, 2009

Associated Press

SAN JOSE, California — Police in California are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public.


The test using 18 patrol officers comes as citizens' groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.

Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift.

The cameras are the size of a Bluetooth cell phone earpiece and attach by a headband above the ear.
San Jose is the first major American city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International. Taser is paying for the experiment, but the price could be high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers.

Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That's $4 million department-wide each year.