How About a Little Quickie?

Came across an article from Mobile News - "A New Plan To Make Stolen Phones Useless?" The FCC is worried that someone might steal your cell phone and wants to help you protect it. Sounds like garbage to me. They never wanted to protect me from having my laptop stolen or my radio or my television, why should they care if someone steals my phone? Rather then just reading the article and thinking "Great, my phone will be safer" ask yourself why the FCC should care.

The article says that the problem is that if someone steals your phone, they can replace the sim card and continue using the phone. The proposed solution is to give every phone a unique identification so that they could not use the phone with a new sim card. Oh and the government is going to create a database of every phone that has been stolen. Sounds like a lot of expense and trouble for something that isn't a problem. Right now if your phone is stolen you can have service terminated immediately and you don't get charged.

What this really means is that when your phone is used for something, if you haven't reported it stolen, you won't be able to claim that someone stole your phone. Now why is this important, simple, your phone will be your cash, we have already talked about that. Now, lets say you want to buy some drugs and transfer money to a drug dealer, if he gets caught you won't be able to say that it wasn't you who paid him, you will have to say it was you or who you let borrow your phone. No black market use of electronic cash.

I think most of us would be okay with that; but, it also means that individual phones could be denied service. Maybe they prohibit hate speech and prevent you from using a phone. No, it will start with prohibiting child molesters from using phones except for "safe" numbers. We will all be happy with that, the real tyranny will come later.

Home Again and Not

I left town for a couple of days to see an old friend and have just returned. It was a great trip and very relaxing. We met some interesting people and had some great food. If you are ever in Laguna Beach, I recommend that you try the food at the Laguna Hotel's "Claes Ovation" restaurant. I didn't stay at the hotel; but, the view and food were fantastic.

Because of my trip, I have not been reading the news. I do not know what is going on for the past few days. What happens when I retire, I will pay even less attention to the world as it matters less and less. Peace.

A Milestone Here

Sometime tonight or tomorrow this little blog will have 20,000 hits. In the scheme of things that may not sound like much; but, it is interesting to me. To all who have come here, I hope you found something of value. When I started this blog four years ago, I never intended to see it last this long.

This whole experience has been interesting. I think back about some of the people who have left comments. A couple of days ago somebody that knew Pastor Daniels left me a very nice comment. I wasn't quite sure how to respond. For me, all posts (except for the really bad ones) are of equal value if they pass on information that people didn't know or ones that maybe get people to consider things in a new way. I never thought that my post on the late Pastor would get viewed by anyone that knew her and I don't know how I feel about it. I am glad that I can be of any service; it is more that I never expected people who didn't know me to read this blog. I am amazed at how many people in foreign countries have read this. I never expected that either.

The posts that were the most important to me were the one's about the Pastor and about pensions. The one's that I enjoy writing the most are the one's where I am attempting to explain something that maybe most people don't understand and I like the one's on quantum physics and the one's showing how technology will be effecting us in the future. There is another benefit to me in writing this blog, it gives me a reason to survey the news on a daily basis looking for things that others might have missed. I always get a kick out of posting stories before they hit Drudge, Alex Jones or others.

While I like reading alternative news sources, I think you have to be careful with them. While the mainstream media pretty much all runs the same stories (nationwide and worldwide), the alternative media tends to over-react to everything. As we watch Greece fall off the edge of the cliff and bank runs in Spain, I think we can all see that we continue to be lied to by our leaders and mass media. The same people who told us that the housing market wasn't going to bust, the same who said that the housing market would have a soft landing and the same one's that told us it would not effect the stock market. They lied and now they want to sell out our retirements and monitor our thoughts. I find it disgraceful that the same world leaders that want cameras in every city, don't televise their meetings at the CFR or Bilderberg meetings.

Just some thoughts.

Who Will Regulate the Internet in the Future?

I am just relaxing today; but, saw this article from the Wall Street Journal and thought I would pass it on to my dear readers. The summary of it is that the United Nations wants to have control over the internet. The internet was "privatized" (the Department of Defense contracted with companies that it created) in 1995. This was really the event that allowed private citizens to use the internet outside of universities and the government. I was one of those people to immediately use it as a part of my job, I was asked to look into it because nobody knew what it would become. I was one of the first 15 million users.

I have watched how the web has changed and grown and it is pretty amazing. When I first began using it, there was no google and no Yahoo and no search engines, you had to know the address. At first it was mostly just a social thing, businesses had not yet invested in having web pages and then I saw that change. The businesses that were first to adopt the web successfully were frequently porn sites, then the non-porn businesses got involved. By the late 1990s the thing had taken off and you could order pizza on-line.

In the beginning the internet was primarily an American thing. Heck, we built it and we own it. Now the United Nations was to be the government body over it. Why should we allow this? If they don't like how it works, they don't need to use it. They also want to tax the use of the internet. Why should the United Nations be allowed to tax Americans for using the internet that our tax dollars created and paid for?

The organizations that maintain and manage IP addresses and domain names and all the rest are funded by the United States Department of Defense, the NSA and others. Rather than us paying for using it (because we already do pay through our taxes), maybe we should be charging the rest of the world for using it. Anyways, you have to understand what the internet is to understand why we don't need to allow international bodies to tax us and tell us what to do. Here is the article.

Wall Street Journal - The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom.

IPv6, Internet ID's and Lies

Wired - Threat Level - New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech.

I think I have written about this in the past. On the internet, no conversation and nothing you do is private and in the future, they will no who you are everytime you use a cell phone or the internet.

In the last couple of posts I already talked about how Europe wants to assign everyone an individual internet identification. Now I want to show how all of this was planned. It is called IPv6. Internet Protocol Version 6 is a change that will occur on June 26, 2012 and involves changing how many digits are used in your internet address. Put in simplest terms, currently the internet allows for 5 billion individual ip addresses. The new addresses will allow for every person on earth (7 billion) to use billions and billions more. This means that every device can have a new address that is assigned based on who owns the device. If it were not for the fact that the governments want an individual ip address for everyone then none of this would be necessary. The conversion was tested within the last year and I wrote a post about it at the time.

The change in the Internet Protocol is required if you are going to have electronic money and if you are going to give everyone and individual electronic identification; but, the don't mention those things when discussing the change. Having said that, it did come up from privacy groups such as EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). EPIC has also been very vocal regarding the pending legislation that would require new Social Security Cards to include your biometric information. Hmmm, lets see, everyone gets a social security card and new ones will have your unique biometric information to identify you positively.

Electronic Identities for Europeans

This article from EurActiv.com is entitled "Brussels wants e-identities for EU citizens". What I particularly like about the article and website is that it includes links to the actual European Union papers. That being said, the European Union is promoting a individual electonic (internet) identification code for each and every person in the union. If you go to the end of the article and click on the link to the EU's paper, you will discover that they also propose that everyone have personal control over their verification (biometrics should be able to do the job).

I just had an odd thought. We are now performing face replacements. I wonder how that would work bio-metrically, I mean would you show up as the old you or as the person whose face you had transplanted? Just my mind wandering. The point is that you are going to have all electronic cash and in order to make that work, you have to have an electronic identification that can be proven to be yours. There are many who believe that we will be required someday to have an electronic chip implanted in us (and many who see that as the Mark of the Beast). Aaron Russo was a movie producer and ran for office, he made the claim that the globalists (including his friend Nick Rockefeller) wanted to put RFID chips in us. YouTube - Aaron Russo says Rockefeller told him of One World gov't and RFID chips. Mr. Russo continued to say the same things as he was dying of bladder cancer. While I would not accept a chip, I still do not believe it will be required or is necessary for identification purposes.

This is like conspiracy day at the Pimpernel's blog. No, these are real things; but, I don't think you can find total agreement in any of the groups promoting internationalism, electronic currency or electronic identification. What I do think you will find is sufficient consensus and the issue becomes one of how and in what manner these things are adopted. The goodie that will make people accept all of them is the elimination of current debt, nationally and personally.

You will be required to have an electronic profile as is being done in India (that I have already written about). Many people think these are great things and we should have an open discussion about where we are headed and why. Right now, in Africa, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (along with the assistance from others) is spearheading a move to vaccinate every child in Africa and as part of this program a cell phone is provided to take a picture of each child that is vaccinated and record their identity into an international database. I had previously written about that and provided links. Sorry, when I repeat myself I prefer just to mention my previous posts rather than track them down. If you are interested in the detail, you can search my blog.

Now lets get down to something you have never heard about. SC37. SC37 is the standardization of international biometrics. It is the effort to have every nation use the same standards for biometrics. According to the Chinese government in 2007, they are doing all they can to implement and meet the goals of the program. If you want a real kick, here is a link to a presentation given by the Chinese in London regarding their progress in the area and how it is to be used to access your computer, your money and to travel.

Whether you see biometrics as good or bad, whether you see it as securing your identity or one step closer to the end times. There is still an issue of our knowledge and acceptance of such things and the truth is, most people are not even aware of how close we are to achieving the ends proposed by the international organizations funding these things. Here is what is clear, we have cameras photographing us all the time and we don't even know it. These photos document most aspects of our lives and once taken can be bio-metrically identified. I question the need and question how it could be used to control us.

It has been said that 75% of England's laws are now written by the European Union. How will you feel and what will you think when a mere 25% of all the laws of the world are written by the United Nations? How will you feel and what will you think when you cannot go anywhere without having to live under these laws which will be written by unelected officials as is done in the EU?

One of my biggest problems with biometrics and an over reliance on electronic data is fundamental. What happens when it goes down? What is the backup plan? Traditionally, paper identification took care of that and without a backup, you would not be able to travel or purchase needed supplies. The internet provides convenience in obtaining information; but, it relies on a complex series of servers and computers to work. Once we have gone fully electronic, we are at risk of catastrophic failures.

Hope that gives you all something to think about.

The Club of Rome

I was recently asked about a group known as "The Club of Rome" and agreed to post some information about it. The organization was founded in 1968 as a think tank. It's membership is limited to 100 (though I also read that they would have another 200 who made the total membership 300, with only 100 active at any time) and you select your replacement. Members have included retired heads of state, scientists and businessmen. 1968 was an interesting year, the hippy movement was in full swing and Woodstock was setting the tone. It was a time when it looked like "the establishment" might just be replaced in the future.

The focus of the Club of Rome is on the environment and population control and world government globalization). The first book published by the Club of Rome was "Limits to Growth". While the book sold over 12 million copies, I think it is fair to say that most people are unaware of the organization. Membership has included Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev. While their primary site is being non-responsive, I will provide a link to their sister organization, The United States Club of Rome.

If you followed the link then I hope you also checked out some of their links, such as this one. World Federalist Manifesto. It basically calls for world government and the end of cash. Now, if you don't believe these people have any real influence I ask you to go back and look into it's membership. It was originally created by two men, Aurellio Peccei and Alexander King (a scientist). Here is a little history of the organization. The Club of Rome popularized (and created I believe) the phrase, "Think globally, act locally" and was a proponent of the United Nations Agenda 21.

I am including a link to the United Nations website which gives the text of Agenda 21. The short of it is that it is the United Nations calling for international control over the environment and taking actions to drive down the population.

The beliefs of the Club of Rome are very similar to the program laid out by the Rockefeller Commission in their report entitled "Population and the American Future - The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future." While I have included a link to the actual report, I will sum up some of it's conclusions. Basically it said that they anticipated that the United States would continue to increase it's population, having children should be regulated (some said no more than 2 and others wanted 0); but, their assumptions all proved wrong. The truth is that the western societies and Japan are not having children, our populations are going down. Fewer people are having children, fewer people are getting married and those who do are getting married later in life.

There are groups such as the John Birch Society that believe this is all the work of international communists. I don't quite see it that way. This is the logical extension of the belief that we are at odds with nature, that we are the enemy to the planet and they have said so. Ted Turner has called for reducing the world population to around 2 billion people (we are currently at 7 billion). Mr. Turner claims that if we do not, we will kill the planet. He is also said to have been a member (though it may have been honorary of) of the Club of Rome. It should also be pointed out that Mr. Turner in the Audubon Magazine had said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

While their website was down, I was able to find the Declaration of the Club of Rome online. DECLARATION of The Club of Rome
Brussels, April 25, 1996. The Club of Rome also calls for organizing the world through ten regions. This caught my friends attention and is why he asked me to write about them. He was unaware of the organization and had heard that it viewed the world in 10 regions. He wondered how this might relate to the ten horns described in Revelations. As I was searching the net I found others had questioned this. Some seemed to focus on the fact that Prince Hassan bin Talal had been the head of the Club of Rome and even asked if he was the anti-Christ. The truth is he left his position in 2007 from what I can tell.

I have to say something. As I read through the internet, I am constantly finding people pointing at this person or that person and asking if they are the anti-Christ. I have read how some people accuse Obama of being him. While I support people asking questions about everything, I think they should be careful in making accusations.

What we should be concerned about regarding groups like the Club of Rome, the Bilderbergs, the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations is how they work outside of the public view. They do not appear to believe in transparency while promoting it for others. The other thing we should be concerned about is what they are promoting. I have provided links to their own websites so that the reader can see for themselves.

Each one of these organizations believes in population reduction, less sovereignty and more international law over traditionally national policies and decision making by unelected experts. This is a common complaint by Nigel Farage regarding the European Union. The term used to describe these people in Europe is Technocrats (we would call them Bureaucrats). My issue with these people is that they believe we are all idiots and need them to decide how the world will work. I do not question their motives, they really do believe they are better than us and know what is best for us.

History is full of people who thought that the world government should be centralized and many who tried to achieve that goal through wars. These people seem to be against war; but, are more than happy to use politics, economics and control over food to motivate countries to agree to greater international control over their lives. I believe like the founding fathers that the greater control should be local.

Not everyone is going to want to read this post, I wrote it for one person to give some background information as requested. As for the globalists, their own words speak for them. "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 the 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 those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries".-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991.