THE 1% DO NOT SEE STATES OR CITIZENS, THEY SEE DEVELOPMENT ZONES AND HUMAN CAPITAL, AS DO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGO'S). THESE ULTRA-RICH ARE THINKING IN TERMS OF DYNASTIES, NOT NATIONAL CORPORATE INTERESTS. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SEEING HAPPENING IN BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND......HOME OF ALL THINGS SECURITY/MILITARY. SO WHEN I SAY THAT THESE PEOPLE WILL HAVE US TALKING IN TONGUES, I MEAN THAT THE PLAN IS NOT ONLY TO BRING IMMIGRANTS IN TO TAKE AMERICAN JOBS......HAVING NO CITIZENSHIP RITES.................BUT TO SEND US CITIZENS ABROAD TO WORK GLOBALLY......TAKING THEIR CITIZENSHIP RITES WITH THEM.
THIS IS A DELIBERATELY PLANNED MIGRATION OF POPULATIONS SURROUNDING LABOR AND IT CENTERS ON DEVELOPING A SOCIETY LIKE THE THIRD WORLD NATIONS HAVING A SMALL PROFESSIONAL-CLASS WHO SERVICE THE TOP, A LARGE POPULATION OF IMMIGRANTS WHO FILL ORDINARY JOBS AT SWEAT-SHOP WAGES, AND A LARGE POPULATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMIGRANTS WHO WORK ABROAD, TAKING THEIR CITIZENSHIP VOICE WITH THEM. THIS WILL EFFECTIVELY END ANY REAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN AMERICA. THIS IS A THIRTY YEAR PLAN COMING TO THE LAST HALF OF IMPLEMENTATION........ THAT IS THE PLAN........IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WHAT HAPPENS!
VOTE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL OUT!!!!!!!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Population transfer is the movement of a large group of people from one region to another by state policy or international authority, most frequently on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Banishment or exile is a similar process, but is forcibly applied to individuals and groups.
Often the affected population is transferred by force to a distant region, perhaps not suited to their way of life, causing them substantial harm. In addition, the loss of all immovable property and, when rushed, the loss of substantial amounts of movable property, is implied.
Population exchange is the transfer of two populations in opposite directions at about the same time. Such exchanges have taken place several times in the 20th century, such as during the partition of India and Pakistan and between post-Ottoman Turkey and Greece.
Issues arising from population transfer
According to political scientist Norman Finkelsteintransfer was considered as an acceptable solution to the problems of ethnic conflict, up until around World War II and even a little afterward, in certain cases. Transfer was considered a drastic but "often necessary" means to end an ethnic conflict or ethnic civil war. The feasibility of population transfer was hugely increased by the creation of railroad networks from the mid-19th century.
Population transfer differs more than simply technically from individually motivated migration, though at times of war, the act of fleeing from danger or famine often blurs the differences. If a state can preserve the fiction that migrations are the result of innumerable "personal" decisions, then the state may be able to justify its stand that it has not been culpably involved. Jews who had actually signed over properties in Germany and Austria during Nazism found it nearly impossible to be reimbursed after World War II.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Emigration is the act of leaving one's country or region to settle in another. It is the same as immigration but from the perspective of the country of origin. Human movement in general is termed migration. There are many reasons why people might choose to emigrate. Some are for reasons of religious, political or economic freedom or escape. Others have personal reasons such as marriage. Some people living in rich nations with cold climates choose to move to warmer climates when they retire.
Emigration had a profound influence on the world in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, when millions of poor families left Europe for the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, the rest of Latin America, Australia and New Zealand.
Even though definitions may be vague and vary somewhat, emigration/immigration should not be confused with the phenomenon of involuntary migration, such as instances of population transfer or ethnic cleansing.
THIS IS THE 1% SOLUTION TO GROWING DISCORD AS A ONCE PROSPEROUS MIDDLE-CLASS IS PUSHED TO POVERTY.....SEND THEM PACKING TO THE GLOBAL COLONIES!!!
WE SIMPLY NEED TO REVERSE INCOME INEQUITY BY MAKING BANKS WRITE-OFF BAD AND FRAUDULENT LOANS, BREAK-DOWN THE BANKS WITH GLASS-STEAGALL, PROGRESSIVE TAX REFORM, AND REINSTITUTE RULE OF LAW AND WE WILL HAVE OUR NATION BACK. YOUR POLITICIAN ISN'T DOING THAT!
The Last of England (painting) Artist Ford Madox Brown Year 1855 Type Oil-on-panel Dimensions 82.5 cm × 75 cm (32 in × 29 in) Location Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery,
Birmingham, EnglandThe Last of England is an 1855 oil-on-panel painting by Ford Madox Brown depicting two emigrants leaving England to start a new life abroad.
Brown began the painting in 1852 inspired by the departure of his close friend, the Pre-Raphaelitesculptor, Thomas Woolner, who had left for Australia in July of that year. Emigration from England was at a peak, with over 350,000 people leaving that year. Brown, who at the time considered himself "very hard up and a little mad", was himself thinking of moving to India with his new family.
CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON STATE ARE THE WEST COAST HOMES OF THE 1%. THEY ARE TESTING THE WATERS FOR THIS ONE PARTY END OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS IN AMERICA. WE MUST UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS AS A WHOLE SO WE CAN ALL FIGHT POLICIES THE THIRD WAY DEMOCRATS ARE IMPLEMENTING IN THAT DIRECTION.
STEPHEN FRANK'S POLITICAL NEWS AND VIEWS
California’s elusive quest for “moderate candidates” and other reform follies
by Stephen Frank on 06/10/2012 ·
We were told that if we got rid of “partisanship” in primaries—nominated the best two people running, our society would be better. Of course to do this, Arnold and the Democrats had to eliminate the Green Party, AIP, Libertarian and Peace & Freedom parties as well.
To create a new form of California Democracy—totalitarianism. Government deciding, not the voters in November who they want representing them.
“That’s important: California’s constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers to pass a tax hike. Thanks to favorable redistricting, Democrats will probably win a two-thirds majority in the state senate this fall. They will fall just short of that mark in the Assembly, but with a little Republican support, domineering Democrats could enact long-dreamed-of increases in tax rates. So if your definition of “centrism” involves higher taxes, the early signs are promising.”
Arnold and the Democrats understand that democracy is messy—so do away with it. Higher taxes will bring fewer taxpayers—the productive will continue to leave the State. Totalitarianism flourishes in a Third World climate—that is the climate change Arnold has brought to California.
California’s elusive quest for “moderate candidates” and other reform follies
John Pitney, City Journal, 6/8/12
On June 5, California held a new kind of primary election, which proponents hoped would lead to a new kind of politics. Alas, the new politics seems to resemble the old. For decades, the state ran a closed-primary system, with registered members of each party picking their nominees for the general election. (Independent, or “no party preference,” voters could not take part in these primaries.) A 1996 ballot measure changed the system to a “blanket” format, with all candidates on the same ballot. Voters could cast their ballots for any candidate; the top vote-getter from each party would advance to the general election.
In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down the blanket primary on the grounds that voters hostile to a party’s positions could hijack its nominations. In response, the state legislature established a modified version of the closed primary: each party would have the option of letting independents vote on its nominations. Critics argued that under the new system, each party’s base voters would effectively become the electoral gatekeepers. Sure enough, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats spurned moderate candidates, leaving the state with a polarized political class. And this polarization, the critics concluded, fostered policy gridlock.
Then came Proposition 14, a ballot measure to change the primary process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. As with the blanket primary, all candidates would be on the same ballot. But instead of resulting in one nominee per party, this system would send the top-two vote getters to the general election, regardless of party. In a heavily Democratic district, for instance, the primary could put two Democrats on the November ballot. The proposal passed with 54 percent of the vote on June 8, 2010 (but its terms dictated that the top-two primary wouldn’t go into effect until 2012).
Though former state senator Abel Maldonado, a Republican, was nominally the idea’s sponsor, the real impetus for the measure came from then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office. As Vito Corleone would say, it was Schwarzenegger all along. His idea was to make primary candidates compete not just for partisan base voters, but also for independents and opposition-party voters. Thus, he reasoned, the system would nudge politicians to the Schwarzeneggerian center.
So how did it work out? In at least a few state assembly races, the top finishers included Republicans who hadn’t signed an oath against raising taxes. That’s important: California’s constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers to pass a tax hike. Thanks to favorable redistricting, Democrats will probably win a two-thirds majority in the state senate this fall. They will fall just short of that mark in the Assembly, but with a little Republican support, domineering Democrats could enact long-dreamed-of increases in tax rates. So if your definition of “centrism” involves higher taxes, the early signs are promising.
Under a broader definition, centrism could be elusive. On the Democratic side, some mildly pro-business candidates will compete in November’s general election. If and when they arrive in Sacramento, however, they will probably vote in line with the dominant liberals. Party discipline is all too real in the Capitol. Lawmakers who stray from the leadership’s wishes face sanctions ranging from loss of committee chairmanships to cuts in staff budgets. They may even end up in “the Dog House,” the unofficial name for the tiniest office in the building.
The power of party leadership will only grow in the years ahead. Voters on Tuesday approved a change in the term-limits law, allowing lawmakers to spend up to 12 years in one chamber or the other. Under the system in place since the early 1990s, they could serve only six years in the assembly and eight in the senate, resulting in constant turnover in leadership positions. Now, leaders can hold their posts much longer, giving them greater leverage over junior members.
Proponents of the “top-two” primary claimed that it would diminish the clout of interest groups, but in fact special interests figure only to get stronger. Candidates must now compete in primaries involving all registered voters, not just members of their own party. Bigger electorates result in costlier campaigns, which in turn require candidates to ask special interests for even more money. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, by far the biggest donor to state campaigns is the California Teachers Association.
Some buyer’s remorse might be setting in. The Santa Cruz Sentinel, which endorsed Proposition 14 two years ago, now laments that third-party and independent candidates will be missing from most fall races. In about one-fifth of the elections for Congress and the legislature, voters will have no choice between parties: two Republicans or two Democrats will be on the ballot, and write-ins won’t count. Nevertheless, this system will be around for a while. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a similar process in Washington State. Californians should have ample opportunity to contemplate yet another “reform” that failed to work as advertised.