Charter School Risks

PPP Strategy for Charter Schools is Now International

Attn: Foreign Investors! U.S. Permanent Residency for Sale, $500,000
The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program provides green cards to non-U.S. investors, if they invest $1 million or $500,000 in targeted U.S. developments. EB-5 visas, also, provide such investors and their family permanent U.S. residency, whether they live in the U.S. or abroad.

Charter Schools and EB-5 Visas:
On October 12, 2012 Reuters published Stephanie Simon’s article, “Charter School Financing Gets You a Green Card? The New U.S. Visa Rush,” that included the following:
“Wealthy individuals from as far away as China, Nigeria, Russia and Australia are spending tens of millions of dollars to build classrooms, libraries, basketball courts and science labs for American charter schools.” (Emphasis added)

On October 4th, eight days before that startling fact,
MiamiTodayNews.com reported that Chinese investors had put $30 million in the state’s charter schools program and plan to invest another $90 million during the next year. The Chinese aquaculture farm, which will grow Pacific white shrimp and sea asparagus, is set for ground-breaking in Central Florida in January.

The Chinese are taking advantage of the federal EB-5 program, which encourages wealthy foreign investors to BUY U.S. visas for themselves and their families by investing as little as $500,000 in targeted, economically beneficial commercial real estate developments, which formerly funded luxury hotels, ski resorts, etc., but includes investing in charter schools, now.

Foreign investors now view public charter schools as their “goose that laid the golden egg,” because charter schools are considered “recession-proof.” Since G.H.W. Bush’s original Public Private Partnership strategy for charter schools has gone international, I have some questions:   Is global participation in U.S. education an unintended consequence or a well-planned, decades-long strategy to destabilize and globalize the United States?
Should investors (foreign or domestic) build their wealth on tax-funded public education?

The director of international business development for Enterprise Florida, declined to name the charter school investors, but revealed that about 12 other Chinese investors have directed their $500,000 into a $16 million aquaculture project on 100 acres in Fellsmere, Florida. Each EB-5 investor of $500,000 will receive a “green card via red carpet” if the investment will “help secure or create” at least 10 full-time jobs in the U.S.

Chinese investors scramble to get in on the deal. At least 34 additional Chinese investors are going through the EB-5 process, although only 32 are needed to raise the $16 million. The gold at the end of that rainbow is permanent residency in the U.S., where investors and their family may live, work and retire in the U.S. or return to their country, while retaining U.S. residency.

Funding: State Charter Schools vs. Traditional Public Schools “Under new law, will state send more funds per child to state charter schools than local systems?”

– AJC Article by Maureen Downey, 8-4-12   On August 4th an inter-office memo from Herb Garrett of the Georgia School Superintendent’s Association was published in Maureen Downey’s AJC article with the above title. Garrett used the QBE formula in H.B. 797 to calculate the differences between funding for fifth graders in traditional public schools, virtual public schools and state special public charter schools.

Downey asked DOE spokesman Matt Cardoza to determine whether Garrett’s calculations were correct. Cardoza responded, “I’ve confirmed that those numbers are correct. Our financial review team ran the numbers based on what the legislation says.” The numbers are as follows:

Funding Required by H.B. 797, Effective July 1, 2012 & Thereafter Per 5th Grader Traditional public schools receive from the State in STATE DOLLARS $2,101.29 A State Special Charter School receives from the State in STATE DOLLARS $6,992.28   Virtual (online) schools receive from the State in STATE DOLLARS $3,921.25

Out-of-State Money Funds Campaign to Pass Charter Schools Amendment

Out-of-state contributions account for 96 percent of the money used to promote charter schools. On July 25, 2012 Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton donated $250,000 to “the Georgia cause.”

On September 15, 2012, Political Insider Jim Galloway outlined the T-SPLOST-like statewide campaign to re-establish state authority to set up local charter schools. The Georgia Charter Schools Association described how $2.7 million would be used – $974,000 for a charter schools association Brighter Georgia plan and a $1.8 million get-out-the-vote campaign by Families for Better Schools, recipient of out-of-state funds totaling $470,760 from June 14 – September 12.

“Recession Proof” Public Charter Schools: New Money-Maker for Foreign Investors

Reuters reported on October 12, 2012 that foreign investors from China, Nigeria, Russia and Australia are expecting big returns on their investments in U.S. public charter schools

 Ali Faisal, a Pakistani citizen living in Canada, eager to expand his business to the U.S. via EB-5, toured Arizona charter schools and decided to invest in charter schools.

 Education Fund of America was set up in the U.S. two years ago by Greg Wing to connect international investors with charter schools. Now, he is arranging EB-5 funding for 11 schools across North Carolina, Utah and Arizona with four more in the works.

 Buffalo, New York. Foreign investors paid for the Health Sciences Charter School to renovate a 19th century orphanage into modern classrooms and computer labs.

 Florence, Arizona. Overseas investors are expected to finance a sixth campus for the booming chain of American Leadership Academy Charter Schools.

 Arizona educator Holly Johnson runs three charter schools, with plans to open a fourth next year, said she couldn’t believe how easy it was to secure $4.5 million in funding from abroad.

 Florida business development officials say the Chinese had invested $30 million in charter schools and plan to invest $90 million more in charter schools next year.

 China. An investor forum “touted U.S. charter schools as a nearly fool-proof investment because they can count on a steady stream of government funding to stay afloat.”

1 Research by U.D. Roberts. Available online at: FamiliesForBetterPublicSchoolsls; americansforchildrenga.xlsTurkish Charter Schools in Georgia  “If the proposed amendment passes, we’ll have more of them.”

– State School Superintendent Barge, October 18, 2012

The “them” in Superintendent Barge’s statement refers to Gulen public charter schools that are operating at tax-payer expense. The origin of the Gulen movement is Turkey, which has been the destination for student field trips. Gulen charter schools were first created in Texas, which has the largest number of Gulen schools in the U.S. They are operated by the Cosmos Foundation, Inc. with its 30-member board, 25 of whom are from Turkey.

Although Cosmos Foundation founded the three Gulen charter schools in Alpharetta – Fulton Science Academy elementary, middle and high schools – they are now operated by the Grace Institute. However, the middle school lost its charter in December 2011.

Turks and public schools. The charter school movement of Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish Imam, is larger than any other charter group in the U.S. Gulen schools annually enroll 45,000 students in the U.S. and thousands more in their world-wide network. No other country funds Gulen schools with taxes, but the 125+ Gulen schools in the U.S. cost taxpayers millions every year.

Fulton Science Academy Middle School was named a “Model United Nations” school. In December, when the Middle school was denied a renewal charter, the Fulton County Legislative Delegation urged the Board to reverse its decision. In that letter, the Delegation reminded the Board, “The school is a nationally recognized Blue-Ribbon institution,” but failed to add that the Middle School was also named a Model United Nations School. After losing its charter in December 2011, the Middle school became a private school.

I don’t want to believe it, but just have to ask: Did out-of-state campaign contributions1 influence our legislators to support charter schools? For Primaries, run-offs, special elections and General Elections in 2010, 2011 and 2012, many candidates received substantial donations from the foundation of Betsy DeVos, billionaire wife of Amway founder Richard DeVos.

In 2010 her American Federation for Children (AFC) sent $272,000 to its Georgia PAC as “action funds” for the 2010 Primary and General Election.

In 2011 her foundation sent the Georgia PAC an additional $15,000 for a special election. For the 2012 Primary AFC sent $185,000 and an additional $73,000 for the 2012 General Election. AFC funding to Georgia totaled $618,450 for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

American Federation for Children (AFC), founded in Milwaukee in 1998 as the American Education Reform Foundation, was renamed Advocates for School Choice, Inc. in 2004 and moved to Phoenix, Arizona. Later, the headquarters moved to Washington, D.C. and its name changed to AFC in 2009.

AFC works alongside the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to draft and support model legislation promoting “school choice” and tax reform for schools. Both ALEC and AFC want to expand funding for charter schools while defunding public schools.

ACTION – Vote NO on Amendment 1 on the November 6th ballot.

1 Contributions in 2010, 2011, & 2012 to specific campaigns range from a high total of $7,200 to a minimum of $100.  Research by U.D. Roberts. Available online at: FamiliesForBetterPublicSchools.xls; americansforchildrenga.xls

Source: Georgia Insight is a conservative publication financed entirely by its recipients. Georgia Insight 4 October 2012  Georgia insight Sue Ella Deadwyler  www.georgiainsight.org

 

Obama Spending Drives Deficits

Obama Spending, Not Bush Tax Cuts, Drives Deficit by John Merline

President Obama often talks about the need for a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction, by which he means tax hikes in addition to spending cuts.

At the recent presidential debate, for example, he said, "We've got to reduce our deficit, but we've got to do it in a balanced way — asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts."The only problem with this approach is that the massive projected deficits over the next 10 years aren't the result of too few taxes. They are entirely the result of too much spending.

Here's the proof.

According to the latest budget forecast from the Congressional Budget Office, even if every expiring tax cut were kept in place permanently — including all the Bush tax cuts and various other expiring cuts from last year and this year — and even if the alternative minimum tax were permanently indexed to inflation, federal revenues would still rise to 18.6% of GDP by 2022.

To put that figure in perspective, from 1948 and 2008, federal revenues averaged 18% of GDP. What's more, despite countless changes to the tax code — which included raising the top rate to 90%, then lowering it to 28%, then raising and lowering it again — revenues as a share of GDP have rarely deviated much from that average.

So even if all the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, federal taxes would end up slightly higher as a share of GDP than the historic average.

Spending Ramping up the CBO report also makes clear that it's out-of-control federal spending that's driving the deficits. According to that report, the federal spending as a share of GDP is on track to steadily rise over the next decade and beyond, reaching 22.3% of GDP by 2022.

That's significantly higher than the 1948-2008 average and much higher than it's been under previous Democratic presidents. In President Clinton's last year in office, for example, federal spending consumed just 18.2% of GDP.

Yet while the president talks about cutting spending as part of a balanced plan, his budget would actually accelerate this spending trend, adding $1.1 trillion to the pile over the next decade, according to the CBO. By 2022, federal outlays under Obama's budget would equal almost 23% of GDP.

As a result, even though Obama wants to raise taxes as a share of GDP to historically high levels, his plan would still produce $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

So what if, instead, federal spending were held to 20% of GDP, which is the goal set by Mitt Romney? In that case, you could keep all the Bush tax cuts in place and still produce deficits half the size of Obama's.

That approach would also be more in sync with what the public has repeatedly told pollsters it wants.

Smaller Government Favored A Rasmussen poll taken in May, for example, found that 64% preferred smaller government and lower taxes. And a July IBD/TIPP poll found that just 38% favored "a bigger government providing more services."

The only real question is how to bring federal spending back in line.

As it stands, entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and others — are growing faster than the economy, which means that, left on autopilot, the federal government will chew up an increasing share of the economy year after year.

The problem is Democrats will fiercely attack any proposed changes to these programs. Obama-Care cuts $716 billion in proposed Medicare spending, but uses that to pay for new spending on subsidized insurance exchanges and other parts of the law.

If entitlement growth isn't checked, then discretionary programs — which include such things as education, highways, justice, the environment and national defense — would have to be cut more deeply. Yet here, too, special-interest groups fight any cutbacks, no matter how small. The bottom line is that unless lawmakers want to force taxes up to levels never before seen in the U.S., they have no choice but to get serious about cutting federal spending back down to size.

Source:  Investors Business Daily 10/18/12 Obama Spending, Not Bush Tax Cuts, Drives Deficit,  by John Merline, Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/101812-629794-blame-spending-not-tax-cuts-for-deficit.aspx#ixzz29n0xPk7y

Comments:

Obama spends $1.6 trillion a year more than the government collects.  If you take a close look at what the government spends it on, it’s easy to see why this spending is wasteful, dangerous and treasonous.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Democrats regard federalism as quaint

Democrats regard federalism as quaint, Republicans at least pay lip service to it. By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley

In the presidential debates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney ranged across dozens of topics, but an important one didn't come up: federalism. And no wonder.

The idea that the Constitution grants only limited and enumerated powers and leaves the remainder to the states is foreign to those who believe that the national government should or even could address voters' every concern. But contrary to the view widely shared by the political class, Washington-in particular, Congress-does not have the power to pass any law it wants in the name of the "general welfare."

Politicians should take heed. Voters are increasingly focused on the proper role of government in society: Witness the rise of the tea party and unease over the massive debt caused by entitlements and other government handouts. The continuing loud objection to ObamaCare's takeover of health care shows that voters want to preserve the Constitution's architecture of limited federal power.

Keeping the federal government within its proper constitutional sphere is critical to all Americans, regardless of their political allegiance. This is because federalism is not about protecting "states' rights" but about preserving individual liberty. In the words of a unanimous 2011 Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States, by "denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

Federalism also allows states to craft policies that best suit the preferences and needs of their citizens, who can always vote with their feet. Likewise, leaving key policy choices to state governments benefits voters through sheer proximity to decision makers. State legislators are often part-timers who work and live in our communities and are more palpably accountable to us.

State-level reform thus comes more swiftly and better reflects the desires of ordinary constituents. States in recent years have led the way in reforming welfare, health care, education and regulatory policies. They have cut deficits, balanced budgets, reformed tax codes and produced jobs.

Federalism also benefits the national government. By having up to 50 different approaches to an issue, Congress can see what works.

Despite federalism's many virtues, it is not much in vogue. Democrats view it as a quaint, 18th-century relic, another disposable constitutional concept that stands in the way of "progress." The Obama administration has been particularly disdainful of federalism, with ObamaCare unconstitutionally coercing states into fundamentally revising their Medicaid programs and compelling individuals-under the guise of regulating interstate commerce-to buy a government-approved health-insurance policy.

Republicans pay lip service to federalism but too often toss it aside to achieve their own policy goals. For example, many congressional Republicans, concerned about abusive lawsuits, would nationalize many aspects of medical malpractice, an area of law traditionally reserved to the states.

Meanwhile big-spending states such as California and Illinois have been lobbying Congress for a federal bailout of their unfunded pensions. From the federalist perspective, it is appropriate that the promiscuous spending of some states makes it difficult for them to borrow more money. Such consequences, while dire, provide the political leverage that citizens living within those states need to force their elected representatives to reform.

Yet Washington may well end up rescuing these nearly bankrupt states-because some states will compromise their own sovereignty when the price is right, and the federal government is only too happy to take over and claim political credit. For there is no more assiduous underminer of federalism than the federal government itself. Every session of Congress and every administration adds to the existing voluminous body of federal law that continues to federalize wide swaths of traditional state authority. This must stop.

There was one glimmer of hope for federalism in the third presidential debate, when Mitt Romney talked about saving Medicaid by making block grants to states. "We'll take that health-care program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently," he said. "As a governor, I thought please, give me this program. I can run this more efficiently than the federal government and states, by the way, are proving it."

If Mr. Romney succeeds in his race for the White House, let's hope he doesn't forget that states can be trusted to run their own affairs.

Source: Mr. Rivkin served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and represented 26 states in challenging ObamaCare. He has advised the Romney campaign. Ms. Foley is a law professor at Florida International University College of Law and author of "The Tea Party: Three Principles" (Cambridge, 2011).

Comments;

There is no defense for the shape we’re in.  Liberals have, through force of will, wrecked the country. There is no escape from blame. The most harmful laws need to be repealed. regulations need to be rescinded and departments and agencies need to be abolished.  Less harmful  laws, regulations and agencies need to be pared back and established at the State level.  If we don’t revive the free market, we’re dead.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

 

 

When will Medical Cost Reduction Come ?

My years in manufacturing taught me to automate what we could and simplify processes to improve quality and lower cost.  We moved these ideas to design and began to identify simple design rules to use to streamline the entire process from design to final assembly. The advances we made had various names and today we use terms like Lean Manufacturing and Supply Chain and the development continues.

In Medicine, they’ve followed earlier versions of management styles, but the emphasis has been 19^th century like increasing equipment and lab test utilization to increase billing and avoid malpractice suits.

The big lie about medicine is that it can do miracles.  The fact is that all patients are different and treatments may or not work.  Imagine your auto mechanic billing you for two repairs, because the earlier one didn’t work.  In auto mechanics, parts are more replaceable than they’ve ever been.  In medicine, patients are more different than they’ve ever been. A given set of symptoms could fit any number of different diseases.

Another big lie is that all people should receive treatment everywhere whether they can afford it or not.  Demanding that all indigent patients receive treatment at private hospitals has done as much damage as giving mortgage loans to unqualified illegal aliens. 

Individual doctors and groups have opened practices that don’t take insurance and have cost-reduced their practices.  Some doctors are interested in holistic Medicine, some are looking at Chinese medical treatments.  There is some hope we will eventually have some cost competitiveness in the system.

Drugs for life-threatening conditions are way overpriced. It would be cheaper to jet to Mexico for snake-bite treatment than pay the $250,000 it costs in the U.S.  Patients need to be given a choice of drugs based on cost to put some pressure on the sky high drugs.  It’s time to ask what drugs were used for snakebite in 1960.

We have long passed the a price / demand curve point in main-stream U.S. medicine.  Overpriced insurance will be dropped in favor of catastrophic coverage if Obama-care is repealed. Patients are refusing high cost treatments even though their insurance would pay for most of it.  More are opting for home healthcare when possible. Patients don’t want to pay the overhead for maintaining expensive hospitals.

The Healthcare Industry needs to rethink all processes to reduce costs to what individuals could pay for themselves without government subsidies.  When the dollar crashes and government is bankrupt, we will all need to rethink our processes.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Washington Post Hits Obama

Finally, the Washington Post and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, the Washington Post and Newsweek have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editors saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.  by Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative

achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance o become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.

Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia   despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise

his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise

with such a man in the Oval Office.

Source: Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

 

 

Guns Sales Up

Something in the air  by  Doug Hagmann     

I attended a gun show yesterday morning, just over a quarter-century after attending my first and only gun show. The first venue was located less than a mile from the current venue. Despite the passage of time, the memories of attending my first event remain surprisingly fresh in my mind. I still recall many of the people and conversations from my first event, as well as the sights, sounds and even the “feel” of that particular gun show.

Attending the event yesterday was like seeing an acquaintance I had not seen in 26 years. I’m certain you know the feeling I am attempting to describe. Perhaps it might be an old flame, or someone you once worked with, or maybe even a distant relative. Over time, you retain a mental image of that person, their appearance the last time you saw them, as well as their voice and even their demeanor. You remember them the way they were the last time you saw and interacted with them. Then, you meet them again and are awestruck by their subtle and not-so-subtle changes.

In the autumn of 1986, I recall listening to gun show attendees talking with the vendors. Most of the discussions revolved around hunting in the hills of northwestern Pennsylvania, selecting the best gun for hunting deer, turkey and other wild game. At that time, many of the attendees were talking about their previous year’s hunting exploits, comparing notes about the best hunting spots and boasting about the different ways they cooked the venison for their families.

Twenty six years later, the conversations were as different as the atmosphere at the event. Largely absent was the talk about hunting, venison recipes, and deer stands. I observed hundreds of men (and many women) of all ages slowly walking through the aisles created by the booths of gun vendors and survival items. I mingled with as many as I could, attempting to listen to their hushed conversations. I struck up conversations with more than a dozen attendees, and asked open ended questions to assess their moods and mindsets. Like that old acquaintance not seen for over two-and-a-half decades, the changes were stark and dramatic.

“Something’s coming”

Over the course of three hours, I spoke with a total of fourteen men (attendees) and two vendors. I deliberately kept the conversations casual and the questions general. My primary questions involved asking the attendees why they were attending, and if they were going to (or already had) purchased anything. I posed my questions informally, as just another person at the event.

Every person I spoke to told me they were there to buy a gun, another gun, and/or look for bargains for ammunition. With the exception of one man, every person I spoke with said they were there to look at or buy weapons and/or ammunition for self-defense. The sole exception was not really an exception at all, as he stated that he already had all he needed for self defense and was there to purchase a more comfortable holster for concealed carry purposes.

I can best describe the mood of the people I spoke with was somber, although that might not be the best adjective to use. Pensive, perhaps, with a “somber” overlay, as if they were just leaving a funeral home after paying their respects to someone they once knew. In unrelated conversations, three of the men, each appearing to be on the trailing edge of their fifth decade of life, stated that they could feel that “something’s coming,” although did not elaborate on what they felt that “something” might be.

It is here that I stress the importance that none of the people I spoke with seemed to relish the thought of meeting that “something” head-on. None were looking forward to doing battle, and even exhibited a reluctance - even a sadness - about having to worry about being prepared. At one point, I recall thinking that I’ve seen happier people at the DMV. There was no talk of specific politics, political parties or policy, the upcoming elections, and not the least bit of discussion about race or national origins. The “something” they were feeling seemed much bigger than that, and I felt it as well. There was something very ominous in the air, and it was almost tangible.

Quiet urgency

Each of the attendees I spoke with seemed to telegraph a sense of quiet urgency. It was not what they said, but how they said things. This quiet, determined urgency was reflected in their serious, focused demeanor.

I observed five of the men purchase long guns for home defense, while eight others bought additional ammunition. I lost track of the man in search of a holster, but suspect he found what he needed based on the inventory at this event. Everyone appeared to be making purchases.

From jerky to survival foods

A quarter century ago, I remember stocking up on beef jerky from one of several vendors. Yesterday, the beef jerky booth attracted some people, but fewer than I recall. Instead, one of the larger booths was staffed by the operators of a survival store, with long-term storable foods and water purification systems stacked high and deep. Their business appeared brisk, and I watched a half-dozen people leave with large containers of emergency food.

Before leaving, I spoke with two vendors on opposite sides of the venue. Both reported brisk sales at the show as well as at their respective stores. Both said they have seen their sales of handguns, long guns and ammunition climb rapidly over the last five years. I asked both what they thought was behind the increase in sales. One of the older men was quick with his response, stating “well, the country has changed, and not for the better.” I then asked him when it changed. After a brief pause of reflection, he replied “when ‘normal’ people started waking up to the fact that we’re a country ‘out of control.’” He added that the 2001 attacks might have gotten people’s attention, but the larger threat is “something else entirely, something from within. People can feel it.”

Yesterday, I not only saw it, I felt it as well. It’s not 1986 anymore.

Source: Canada Free Press, - Doug Hagmann  Monday, October 15, 2012 

Rogue Polio Vaccine

Has the CDC lost its collective mind?

What most likely has to be one of the most convoluted, twisted up, insane things to have come along in quite some time, the Centers for Disease Control (Contamination) have come up with what has to be one of the all-time idiotic rationales concerning vaccines.  This collection of mad scientists, government hacks, and NWO puppets has just published one of the most idiotic, screwed up explanations for why their "one size fits all vaccine even if it kills ya" is backfiring in a major way.

The polio vaccine that Bill Gates, an admitted population reduction advocate, has been funding in the forced vaccination of every one in third world countries, is killing some and paralyzing many, many more as the polio virus mutates in response to the vaccine.  This has created a far more virulent and aggressive strain of polio.  India is a prime target. Currently, an estimated 50,000 have succumbed to vaccine induced polio paralysis which as it turns out is far more virulent than the strain they claimed the vaccine would prevent.

Not to be deterred by anything that might resemble a precautionary truth, the CDC has decided that the reason the vaccine induced, virulent, mutated, strain of polio is sweeping India is NOT so much from the new strain being easily transmitted by those infected, or that the new strain is appearing only in those who got that magic polio vaccine,  it’s because there are still unvaccinated children who are causing the disease to spread.  Yeah.that's it.  Only they don't have it.

In the magical, mystical world of the CDC, anything can be explained away simply by choosing to refuse to acknowledge the reality of a situation and instead, creating an implausible excuse for why this mutation is spreading. According to the CDC, it is the fault of the UNvaccinated. People who never received the vaccine are causing a viral mutation from the vaccine that they never got, and they are still to be blamed for spreading a disease they never had.

Those who were vaccinated for polio can also contract the new mutated polio virus if they don't in fact, incubate the mutation.

Note by Victoria:  do you know what soft kill is. killing me softly and

we're NOT talking Roberta Flack!  Here are some examples: vaccines,

chemtrails, gmo's (not real food); fluoride in water, high fructose corn

syrup, msg, statins, aspartame. the list goes on! 

Source: Victoria Baer, From <http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/nonvaccinated-are-blamed-spreading-vaccine-created polio?utm_source=GreenMedInfo+Weekly&utm_campaign=671fd31bf4-Greenm

edinfo&utm_medium=email> GreenMedInfo:

<http://ppjg.me/blog/nonvaccinated-are-blamed-spreading-vaccine-created-poli

o> Nonvaccinated Are Blamed for Spreading Vaccine-Created Polio

The bottom line here is that they're blaming the unvaccinated for spreading

new versions of polio that are mutations from their vaccines. In spite of

the fact that they may be giving the wrong vaccine for the polio that's

causing disease, and that vaccine's virus is mutating into a new form of

polio, the people to blame are those who could not possibly have had

anything to do with it. And, even though people who have received the

vaccine can also fall victim to the new polio, thus incubating it and

passing it to others, it's still the fault of the unvaccinated!

The argument that most vaccine advocates like to use these days, is that

somehow un-vaccinated children create huge costs in the health care system.

No one can come up with any reputable resource to back this up, but thats

beside the point.  Still, I have to wonder what the health costs to India

will be to treat and care for these 50,000 plus, children who are now

permanently crippled, if they haven't died?  And since they are even now

continuing to force the vaccination of defenseless children against a polio

strain that occurred rarely and have created a whole new strain for which

there is no "vaccine", what will it cost India in the long run?

Personally, I think India should set themselves up one of those hocus, pocus

kangaroo vaccine injury courts like we have.  Then a panel of medical

experts who have absolutely no medical training can tell parents that their

vaccine injured child is not really suffering from a vaccine injury after

all. Of course there will be no mention of the other 49,999 other cases of

vaccine injury.   The state is off the hook, the pharmaceutical companies

are off the hook and you get to take your injured child home to suffer the

consequences, with no help.  And of course!  The sale of deadly vaccines

will go on unimpeded!

I believe everyone at the CDC should receive this polio vaccine..and they

should be treated the same way the rest of us are when dealing with the

results.

Leg braces anyone? 

 

Source: http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/vaccslowkill_dees2.jpg

http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/vaccslowkill_dees2.jpg?w=300&h=266In