Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization

an excerp from John Holdern's book(page 917, of ecoscience) about ways to control populations.



First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.


Second, Obama has exempted Interpol's domestic facilities -- including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice -- from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.


Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 91137.html



go ahead, call me crazy.

You're crazy

The health care bill now being proposed takes these measures a step further. In section 1233, the bill says that the elderly shall receive an actual visit from a government official, who will conduct an “advance care planning consultation,” if “the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years....


At first glance, it may seem that the elderly, who may not be fully aware of their options, are simply being offered a spectrum of end-of-life treatments. But we at PRI believe that this is in fact an effort to deny the elderly such things. This language will allow meddlesome government bureaucrats into your home to pressure you to refuse—in advance—lifesaving medical care on cost-cutting grounds.

If this seems like an overreaction, consider the records of the political appointees who will be implementing this provision.

Take John Holdren, Obama’s new science czar. Holdren has written quite explicitly in favor of mandatory population control. In a book (entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich of “population bomb” fame, Holdren speculates on how population control could probably be instituted without changing the American constitution.

In another noteworthy example, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s new HHS secretary (replacing the scandal-ridden Tom Daschle), recently complained that most American insurance packages do not include abortion except in limited circumstances. Sebelius also drew fire from pro-lifers because of huge campaign donations that she received from the late abortion doctor George Tiller.

And then there is Obama himself, the most pro-abortion, pro-population control president we have ever had. He claims that his health care reform will not increase the national deficit by a single dime. This is, of course, utterly impossible, unless some major concessions are made in the quality of care that Americans receive. Seen in this way, the visit from a government-sponsored “practitioner” sounds less like a complimentary consultation, and more like a government cost-saving measure. It will be at this meeting that the government will decide whether or not a person is worth continuing to care for, or is simply “burdening” the system....


http://catholicexchange.com/2009/08/03/120968/