CONFESSIONS OF A CONSPIRACY THEORY JUNKIE

Carole “CJ” Williams
February 16, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Conspiracy theory: “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” – Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein

After considering the twists and turns along the road taken, and knowing full well how it is I’ve come to be the sort of person I am now that I’ve reached the ‘golden years’, I feel no shame in admitting that I’ve become a conspiracy theory junkie. In fact, so shameless am I in my guilt, that I’ll beat my chest like Tarzan and shout my confession to the world.

“I AM A CONSPIRACY THEORY JUNKIE!!!”

Worse, I’ve no remorse over the fact that my fingers have typed the truth of many conspiracies during the past several years, verifying that my theories and some others’ theories, which I shared with readers of my newspaper column, have proved to be reality, not merely theory.

You see, with the changing of the guard in the District of Criminals, the treachery of those who’ve insidiously contrived to destroy my Sovereign State of Michigan, my Constitutional Republic, the future of my children and grandchildren, and my independence has become more transparent. Actually, the move from covert to overt malfeasance is about the only area in which many of my local, state, and federal government officials have become transparent.

Conspiracy theorists have been around for quite some time. It’s only of late – with the phenomenal growth of the TEA Party movement – that the label has received such thundering derision, particularly from the gaggle of far left-leaning, Mao-hugging ‘Progressives’, who appear to have taken over the Democratic Party at all levels.

Why the derision? The answer is simple. The TEA Partiers have become a ‘tempest in a teapot’; they’re upsetting the conspiring Progressives’ apple cart and the Progressives don’t much like it. So, to discredit the TEA Partiers and tarnish their image, Progressives engage in name-calling.

As far as I’m concerned, the childhood chant, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”, holds as true today as it did when I was a kid many long years ago. So there – neener, neener, neener!!!

For me, personally, conspiracy theories have provided a jumping off place to ferret out truth. But then, unlike far-left and far-right extremists who question nothing and appear to enjoy riling up the masses for their own glory and/or profit, I generally question everything. It’s a precautionary principle I’ve gradually adopted over the years from having been too naïve, too gullible, and too trusting.

I finally threw away my rose colored glasses in July of 2003 when a direct and public assault was made on my integrity. Now I even look at stray, apparently homeless cats with a skeptical eye – especially the two-legged variety that maliciously attempt to prey on my sympathetic generosity.

In a sense, the unwarranted assault served a good purpose. It compelled me to discover why I posed such a threat to one man that he would attempt to destroy my value as a human being in the eyes of others. It took me three months to unravel the mystery, but when I stumbled upon the Wildlands Project and the land-grab conspiracy that led to Governor Granholm’s ‘U.P. Big Deal’, I knew I’d hit pay dirt.

With further research, I learned that my antagonist was a bit player in that conspiracy – he was greedily acting to preserve his tiny slice of the pie. However, I bet he now rues stabbing me in the back because, thanks to his brutal attack, I ended up writing a weekly column that was published in two Michigan papers for five-years running.

Through that column, I exposed the duplicity of many treasonous individuals and groups who have played starring roles in an even bigger conspiracy, namely the U.S. Constitution shredding, United Nations’ Agenda 21/Sustainable Development Program.

If you’re not familiar with Agenda 21, please know that the UN’s Wildlands Project is an integral part of the Agenda. It’s designed to turn at least half of America back into wilderness where common people won’t be allowed to go. The targeted areas, generally UN Biospheres and ‘buffering’ bioreserves, seem to be those rich with above-and-below ground natural resources. The entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan is one such targeted area.

The eco-environmental army is implementing the Wildlands Project, steadily working to divest the American people of their public and private property rights. That army is being aided and abetted by federal and state lawmakers, who not only propose and pass legislation amenable to the goals of our persecutors, but also come up with taxpayer money to support those goals.

In a nutshell, Agenda 21, which is a 40-chaptered by-product of the 1992 UN Earth Summit, is a blueprint to be followed by ‘progressives’ and their cohorts at all levels of government who are working to redistribute wealth.

The proof that my congressman, Bart Stupak, has crawled into bed with the socialists who are implementing Agenda 21 lies in his co-sponsorship of Nancy Pelosi’s March 29, 1993 legislation, HJ RES 166. The bill was a copycat of her 1992 H.CON.RES. 353 legislation, which former Representatives Barney Frank, Leon Panetta and 61 others co-sponsored, including Rep. Charles Rangel.

HJ RES 166 was designed to force the American people to help Pelosi and her Democrat/RINO cronies save the planet while some politicians filled their pockets through investments in alternative energy industries and availed themselves of campaign contributions from lobbyists.

The introductory language of Pelosi’s HJ RES 166 reads: “Providing for the United States to assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in the high-level United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.”

Though the Senate Foreign Relations Committee didn’t act upon HJ RES 166, it ‘s being implemented anyway through complimentary legislation, bureaucratic regulations, and various UN treaties, as well as through executive orders signed by presidents, past and present.

One only need read HJ RES 166, the Treaties, and Executive Orders to understand how we’ve come to this place in time in America; why our economy is crumbling and why we’re finding it harder and harder to achieve the American Dream of a decent paying job, home ownership, three-square meals on the table and enough jingle in our pockets for a few of the nicer things in life after we’ve paid our household bills and taxes.

Among other passages contained in HJ RES 166 are these items: “The President and Congress should encourage and facilitate, at all levels of community and sectors of society, appropriate means for adopting individual Agenda 21 plans of action, including the establishment of local, county, State, business, and other boards and commissions for achieving sustainable development. Each member of congress should help initiate this process within their States or districts.”

“In order to contribute to a transition to an environmentally sustainable US economy, the research and policy initiatives urged in Agenda 21 should be pursued, including research on environmentally sustainable consumption patterns, identification of a strategy to eliminate or reduce subsidies for unsustainable natural resource exploitation, and move toward pricing policies that more truly reflect environmental costs.”

“The Congress should adopt a system to reallocate an appropriate amount of savings from reduced defense spending in order to achieve the goals of Agenda 21 for global environmental protection and sustainable development over the next decade.”

Of the sixty-seven representatives who cosponsored Pelosi’s Agenda 21 legislation in 1993, twenty-four are still in office and, like Stupak, may be seeking reelection. The list includes:

Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (D-AS), Bob Filner (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Jerold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), John Olver (D-MA), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Bernard Sanders (I-VT, currently a senator), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Edolphus Towns (D-NY), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Additionally, Constance Morella, a former Republican representative from Maryland, became Permanent Representative to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD).

The OECD was formed in France in 1961. On its Website, OECD describes itself as an “organisation” that “provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies.”

The OECD’s Washington Center Website “About” link on its Home Page will take inquisitive minds to another page where manipulative OECD “Decisions, Recommendations and Other Instruments of Force” can be viewed.

Although the two weekly papers I wrote for have now folded (due to Michigan’s tanked economy), I’m again on staff, exposing conspiracies through another local paper. The area ‘progressives’ know this, but, like vampires, they prefer to do their dirty deeds in the dark. They’d prefer to shut down that publication and avoid the light that truth brings to all who care to know it.

Oh, I almost forgot. Hopefully, I’ll be asked to speak at some of our local TEA Parties again next summer. Maybe I’ll see you there and we can enjoy a glass of iced tea together while talking about the truth of some conspiracy theories.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole114.htm

##########

C. J. (Carole) Williams lives in Michigan’s beautiful Upper Peninsula. She writes a weekly newspaper column, “On Target with C. J. Williams”, for Ontonagon’s Lake Superior Voice (www.thelakesuperiorvoice.com) and is also a guest writer for the Women Hunters Club (www.womenhunters.com), an online organization dedicated to the encouragement, education, and promotion of women in the hunting traditions.

For the past several years, C. J. has been monitoring the eco-environmental movement and the UN’s Agenda 21 in her state, as well as America, which she strongly believes has done more to destroy our nation than to make it as strong and prosperous as it could and should be.

E-Mail: uppatriots@yahoo.com

I’m so excited about the response to our plea for constitution-lovers to express their opinions of the Alpena city ordinance that prohibits weapons (and razors) on any person in the city.  (Section 54-2, a, 6)  We expect a tremendous turnout tomorrow night at 123 Chisholm, at 6 pm.

Many of those who have sent supportive emails, seem to think that this weapon prohibition is pending. This is not the case.  The unconstitutional provision is already part of the Alpena code. We’re optimistic that the city council will recognize this unusual opportunity to uphold the fundamental rights of the community.

I am not going to pretend to be a scientist and opine on matters I’m not an expert about.  I will, however, note the definite lack of consensus among scientists as to the degree that human civilization is a factor in climate change, and the inability of the U.S. Congress to determine and implement the solution.

Marc Morano of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works lists fourteen major climate activist scientists that have completely reversed their positions on climate change, and many more never believed it to begin with.  The founder of the Weather Channel called global warming “the greatest scam in history,” and the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (linked here) has many more.  For those of you unfamiliar with scientific arguments that contradict those made by Al Gore, here is a good overview that is not overwhelmingly technical.

Whether or not you are persuaded one way or the other, let’s focus our attention on national legislation, because it’s what my role would be.  In a free society with a free market, natural supply and demand laws regulate the market.  Renewable energy will invariably replace non-renewable energy, because as the supply of non-renewable energy diminishes, its price goes up, and sooner or later, the price of scarce, non-renewable energy such as oil will exceed the price of renewable energy.  There is, for instance, the Fischer-Tropp method, which converts just about any organic material into diesel.  There is nuclear energy, which is far more efficient and cleaner than coal.  And of course there is wind, solar, geo-thermal, and hydroelectric energy.  As human civilization develops, we will doubtless discover new techniques to improve it further.  That’s the nature of the free market.

Likewise, clean energy will replace polluting energy.  “But Linda, a company will do anything to make a buck, even if it means polluting people’s land!”  Yes, but if they pollute someone else’s land, the recourse for that lies in the judicial branch, not the legislative.  When laws are passed to help or hurt business, we pay with taxes and red tape that discourages business.  “But Linda, if a company pollutes the air and water, harming nobody in particular but the general public, who can sue them?”  This is considered “externalized cost” and this is a problem, but by harming the general population, it also harms the people that run the company that live in the area.  Their concerns become market demand for clean energy.

If this sounds like some sort of crass defense of corporate greed, take a close look at the oil industry.  You can buy gas from Exxon, Shell, BP, and a variety of other companies.  If you have a preference, you don’t have to go very far to shop competitively; competing companies often have station across the street from each other.  The companies have varying environmental records; some are leaders in clean energy while others have caused major environmental disasters.  If the consumers care, they can put their money where there mouth is by supporting cleaner energy companies.  Most people today don’t think very much about this, but if environmental negligence makes things worse, consumer sentiments will get more volatile, and people will become motivated to shop thoughtfully.

If this still seems fantastical, consider how much worse pollution was thirty years ago.  When the price of oil went up, auto-makers immediately started making smaller cars.  Factories have gotten cleaner, and polluted cities were cleaned up.  This didn’t happen because of national legislation, it happened because in a free market, consumer demand is the law of the land.  And it worked.

The Democratical National Committee chairman Howard Dean issued an email about a year ago stating that environmental legislation would be the centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s 2008 campaign strategy, thus disproving Al Gore’s statement in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” that this was not a political issue, but a “moral” issue.  Indeed, the Democratic Party has made climate change into a political weapon.  It is ironic that the liberals, who supposedly see with total clarity how George W. Bush’s 2004 Presidential campaign used fear-mongering to win votes, are now telling everyone “vote Democrat, or the ice caps will melt and we’ll all die!”  Sad, but ironic.

People need to understand two things about the federal government: it is extremely powerful, and it is extremely foolish.  Even when it acts with the best of intentions, the consequences are never forseen.  For example, a decade or so ago, the government wanted to require auto-makers to put dual airbags in every car.  Seemed like a reasonable effort to save lives.  The problem is that at the time, installing airbags added about $1000 to the cost of each vehicle, so fewer people could buy new cars, hence, people tended to drive older cars.  As it happens, the biggest factor in car safety is how long ago it was made–older technology, older parts.  So people that bought new cars were glad to have the airbags, but more people had to save money for them, and drive their older, more dangerous vehicles in the meantime.

So now look at proposals to solve global warming.  Last year, the governor of Florida signed executive orders requiring the state government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ten percent by 2012 and forty percent by 2025.  Sounds great, but how can they achieve that?  They could fine companies that pollute, or levy taxes; they would need a body to supervise all of this.  So they would need more tax money for the bureaucracy, or they could collect it in fees from the offending companies.

If you own a company in Florida, all of this red tape and increased cost gives you an incentive to do business elsewhere.  So the environment is protected, but now Floridians will lose jobs and pay more taxes.  On the national level, it’s similar: companies that are aggravated by national policy have an incentive to move operations (and jobs) overseas.  On the international level, it’s absolutely frightening to imagine global organizations threatening to pull funds from Third World countries if they build a “dirty” power plant or too many cars or something similar.

And that’s what global warming is really about, the same thing “global” everything : centralizing power and control, always at the expense of the poor and middle class.  The United States America became the most prosperous nation in the world for three reasons: we enshrined and defended individual rights, we localized power, and we limited federal authority.  The USSR tried the opposite, and what happened?  Their union collapsed.  As have so many fascist governments over the years.

We owe it to ourselves to defend these principles that have brought such prosperity to our country, and that is why I am proud to sign the Americans for Prosperity pledge that promises not to demand one additional cent of taxpayer money for climate change reforms.