DC rally shows support for struggling Democrats

• 277 votes
• • Email
  • Print

AP – Activists gather at the Lincoln Memorial to participate in the 'One Nation Working Together' rally to …

• Slideshow:'One Nation Working Together' rally

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Tapping into anger as the tea party movement has done, a coalition of progressive and civil rights groups marched Saturday on the Lincoln Memorial and pledged to support Democrats struggling to keep power on Capitol Hill.

"We are together. This march is about the power to the people," saidEd Schultz, host of "The Ed Show" on MSNBC. "It is about the people standing up to the corporations. Are you ready to fight back?"

In a fiery speech that opened the "One Nation Working Together" rally on the National Mall, Schultz blamed Republicans for shipping jobs overseas and curtailing freedoms. He borrowed some of conservative commentator Glenn Beck's rhetoric and vowed to "take back our country."

"This is a defining moment in America. Are you American?" Schultz told the raucous crowd of thousands. "This is no time to back down. This is time to fight for America."

With a month of campaigning to go and voter unhappiness high, the Democratic-leaning organizers hope the four-hour program of speeches and entertainment energizes activists who are crucial if Democrats are to retain their majorities in the House and Senate. The national mood suggests gains for the GOP, and Republicans are hoping to ride voter anger to gain control of the House and possibly the Senate.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka urged participants, including his union's members, to band together.

"There is nothing, and I mean nothing, we can't do when we stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder," Trumka said. "We will stand together. And we will win together. And we won't let anyone — and I mean anyone — stand in our way."

That starts as soon as the crowds get back to their homes.

"Coming out of here, we've got to go home and ask our friends to vote, ask our neighbors to vote," NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said.

"Ever forward, never backwards," he led the crowd in a cheer.

But even participants recognized the challenge.

"There may be an enthusiasm gap, but we're not going to know until we have an election," said Ken Bork, who came from Camas, Wash. "A lot of the noise from the extreme right-wing stuff, it's been well orchestrated by big money. But it's not as bad as they're making it out."

Rose Dixon, a health care worker from Pawleys Island, S.C., said she hopes the rally sends a message to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"Stop the obstructionism. Work together," Dixon said. "Stop playing politics as usual and to put the American people first. We're tired of the politics and the posturing and the games."

The Rev. Al Sharpton, addressing the crowd that swelled through the day, warned activists against apathy.

"We've got to go home and we've got to hit the pavement. We've got to knock on doors. We've got to ring those church bells," Sharpton said, urging the crowd to go home and volunteer for candidates.

Organizers insist the rally is not partisan. They say the message is about job creation, quality education and justice. However, the largest organizations, such as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees InternationalUnion, tend to back Democratic candidates.

But the speakers hardly shied from criticizing Republicans.

"If Sarah Palin had a bright idea, it'd be beginners' luck," comedian Charlie Hill joked from the stage about the 2008 vice presidential nominee.

Van Jones, who last year was forced from his job as a White House energy adviser after Beck made public his comments disparaging Republicans, said during his remarks that progressives must stand with Democrats to put America back to work.

"They don't need hateful rhetoric. They need real solutions," Jones said.

More than 400 organizations — ranging from labor unions to faith, environmental and gay rights groups — partnered for the event, which comes one month after Beck packed the same space with conservatives and tea party-style activists.

Organizers claimed they had as many participants as Beck's rally. But Saturday's crowds were less dense and didn't reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck's rally. The National Park Service stopped providing official crowd estimates in the 1990s.

Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gathered near the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech to urge a vast crowd to embrace traditional values. Though also billed as nonpolitical, the rally was widely viewed as a protest against the policies of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

One Nation organizers said they began planning their event before learning about Beck's rally, and said Saturday's march is not in reaction to that.

"Our strength is your strength," SEIU President Mary Kay Henry led a chant from the steps where King delivered one of the nation's most

"We are one nation, coming together."

Obama was spending the weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

Tea Party Insurrection?

I wrote this before the formation of the Tea Party.

Universal Health Care: Providing For The Common Defense and General Welfare

The issues surrounding unruly town hall meetings and angry mobs were addressed over 200 years ago in the Federalist Papers, specifically #9, Hamilton and #10 Madison.

Hamilton #9: The utility of a Confederacy, as well to suppress faction and to guard the internal tranquillity of States, as to increase their external force and security, is in reality not a new idea. It has been practiced upon in different countries and ages, and has received the sanction of the most approved writers on the subject of politics. 

What Hamilton basically says is that an insurgent faction disrupts consolidation and consensus of groups, better known as a republic. This idea was expounded and refined in Madison #10.

Madison identified the "inner tranquility" of the consolidation and consensus of groups as the "majority". He further spoke of the futility of non-peaceful protests as they disregarded established legislative processes, having elected government representatives.

"Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

Historically, civil disobedience only works when functioning under the policy of peace. These protests are not peaceful in language or activities, an early presentation of failure of the insurgence.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The Bill of Rights: First Amendment

The key word is "peace". Once this tenet of the First Amendment is violated, peace, the government is empowered to protect the people, pursuant to the General Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The following is an excerpt of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, called the General Welfare Clause:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Violence, be it verbal, emotional or physical, becomes grounds for government intervention, or rather the calling of the police to maintain the peace. When this happens you have an insurrection, pursuant to the General Welfare Clause. Under this light, health care as commerce, or rather Universal Health Care, is seen as a "provision for the common defense social disease, meaning maintainability of individual and social health, becoming interchangeable with the temporal terminology of General Welfare.

Quintessentially, Universal Health Care is one in the same with the Common Defense and General Welfare of the people of the United States of America. Here is a visual model for greater understanding:

Universal = Common

Health = Defense

Care = General Welfare

There is a lack of organization and understanding, as the insurrections constantly demonstrate a significant failure in mastering a rudimentary education of the social mobilization.

Peace.

Marcus Bachmann’s Christian clinic takes in thousands in state aid

Marcus Bachmann’s Christian clinic takes in thousands in state aid

By bachmannstupidoverdrive

What to criticize first, the church-state mingling issue or the fact thatBachmann’s husband has taken nearly $30,000 from the state government while she’s out criticizing government handouts? Remember, kids, this is a clinic that “de-gays” people through Jaysus.

It’s not the only instance of Marcus Bachmann taking government dough; his family farm has taken in nearly ten times that amount in federal farm subsidies. Paying Marcus Bachmann to not produce corn and dairy? Oh, that’s just fine. But health care for poor children? ABHORRENT! This is the face of evanglical Christianity. Hope they’re proud.

But they’re not racists at all!

But they’re not racists at all!

By bachmannstupidoverdrive

Get this: Michele Bachmann, whose husband’s family farm has taken more than $250,000 in farm subsidies and whose husband’s crazy faith healing clinic has taken nearly $30,000 in state aid, is against wasteful fraud in farm subsidies! According to The Hill, she and Steve King, R-The Crazy Part of Iowa, held a press conference recently to denounce “fraud” by black farmers claiming part of a settlement with the USDA over historically racist lending practices.

As the report explains, there is no actual fraud. Their claim is that more people are claiming part of the settlement than the number of black farmers reported by the Census. This would make sense if you need to be a current farmer to claim part of the settlement — but you don’t. The whole point of this settlement is to repay people who were allegedly discriminated against between 1981 and 1997. So the events underlying these claims are between 13 and 29 years old. But Bachmann and King never let the facts get in their way! Especially when they can claim the Obama administration doesn’t care, and draw a racist inference without actually ever saying “because he is black.” (Or half black, but these are the kind of people who invented the one-drop rule.)

By the way, we don’t have any other good evidence that Bachmann is a racist, although she is certainly prejudiced against Muslims and gay people. We suspect she is even proud of it. However, if you want evidence that Steve King is a racist, spend five minutes googling him. In January, directly after a huge earthquake destroyed Haiti, he said deported Haitians could be handy as relief workers (with what money?), has voted against a resolution thanking slaves for building the Capitol and has accused the president of being inherently racist, using what we hope was a metaphor and not an attempt to be medically accurate. We also remember reading, but cannot now find, an article in which King suggested just deporting everybody who’s Hispanic. And this is a person who sits on the House immigration committee. Jesus wept.

Bill Gates says vaccines can help reduce world population

(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

You can watch this yourself at:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...

This text will be replaced by the player

Reducing the world population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?"

Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is "health care," which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a "sick care" system that actually harms more people than it helps.

Perhaps that's the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...

How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let's conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn't be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can't just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be "effective" from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that's unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 - 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This "soft kill" method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don't quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages(http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v...).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This "bioweapon" approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s...

Here's the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?
Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259

The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a "hard kill" pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).

Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired... all in the name of health care!

The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the "hard kill" pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of "sweat-triggered vaccines" that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.

More interestingly, his foundation has also invested millions in sterilization technologiesthat have been called a "temporary castration" solution. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v...)

It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula forCO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.

Who will be left alive? The smart people

The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.

I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, "It's only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!" (Their words, not mine.)

In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an "evil genius" kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you're not too bright and probably don't engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.

If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.

In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don't believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.

Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it's not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don't even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?

As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-carecosts which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, "unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people" then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)

As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we've discussed here: "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.

My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you'll also pass the "universal IQ test" which determines whether you're smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop "seasonal flu" is a foolish endeavor.

Be healthy and wise, and you'll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don't have the intelligence to question what they're being told to do by their own corrupt governments.

Levi Johnston: Policy Questions 'Over My Head'

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