Category Archives: – NOREASTERN NEWS
General Assembly’s letter urges Trump to adopt ‘get tough’ stance
By John Droz Jr. | News Analysis
PERQUIMANS & PASQUOTANK — The current methodology of coming up with our national technical policies is fundamentally flawed. An instructive case is what transpired with the large Desert Wind/Amazon project, currently being built in Perquimans and Pasquotank counties of northeastern North Carolina.
Here are some unsurprising results of a self-serving lobbyist-driven energy policy:
One, the Obama administration’s position appears to be that promotion of industrial wind energy is more important than maintaining our military missions, assuring military readiness, and/or protecting the lives of military personnel.
As evidence, consider that the Department of Defense ‘Wind Clearinghouse’ has been given more than 5000
cases where there is some type of conflict between a proposed wind project and a military facility. Only once was a wind project cancelled.
Two, the primary justification for this aggressive wind energy promotion is that wind energy supposedly plays an integral role in reducing climate change. However, this marketing claim does not hold up under careful
scrutiny. The fact is that there is zero scientific proof that wind energy makes any consequential contribution to alleviating climate change.
Three, few people have any idea what a ROTHR, or Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar facility is, or the important role it plays in protecting our national security. There are only two in the continental U.S. – and one lies on the Virginia – North Carolina border, mere miles from the Desert Wind project. Electromagnetic interference and effects associated with wind farms can impact proper functioning of the ROTHR.
Four, in its zeal to promote renewable energy, the current administration appears to knowingly have agreed to compromise our national security. They were aware of the serious potential risks the Desert Wind/Amazon
project could have on the ROTHR facility, yet choose to play them down.
Five, in their one-sided commitment to promote wind energy, the current administration did not take some reasonable precautions in this situation, that would have better protected our national security.
Example #1: Did they insist that the Desert Wind project be moved just 20-plus miles away to protect our national security? No. (This might have been a nuisance to the developer, but not an insurmountable problem. Who should be inconvenienced here: The wind developer or our military?) Example #2: Did they have any provisions in the Department of Defense – Developer Agreement that would automatically shut down nearby wind turbines that caused a major disruption in the ROTHR signal? No.
Six, this wind project was pushed through the NC “approval” process without any NC statewide wind energy rules or regulations being applied. (That situation has since been corrected with passed NC legislation.)
Seven, due to this lack of oversight, a lawsuit was filed to require that reasonable wind energy rules and regulation be applied to this wind project, and not let this wind project get approved on a technicality. The state attorney general (and now Governor-elect) Roy Cooper fought against independent environmental tests (and a military assessment) being done, and he won. So consider that irony: Governor-elect Cooper is the highest “progressive” person in NC, yet he led the fight against a reasonable environmental assessment to protect the state’s ecosystems.
Eight, the main argument made by the promoters of this wind project is that it will be an economic boon to a depressed rural area of North Carolina. Fact 1: Our electrical energy sources are not selected due to the economic effects on a host community. Instead our electrical energy sources are chosen based on their reliability, true cost to ratepayers & taxpayers, proximity to demand centers, dispatchability, etc. Wind energy fairs poorly on all such metrics — which is why wind proponents try the sleight-of-hand tactic to talk instead about local property tax payments, local lease payments, etc. Fact 2: The reality is that the Desert Wind project is likely to be a substantial negative financial drain on local economies. One estimate, made by independent experts, puts the figure at a net loss of $11 Million, per year! Why don’t wind proponents ever show an objective, NET local financial impact?
Nine, the electricity economics of this project were so bad, that all three utility companies (Duke, Progress and Dominion) declined to buy its power. The NC Democrat Governor (at the time) followed the national lead and interceded, attempting to cajole the utilities to accept this higher-cost electricity. To their credit, the utilities refused to pay for this expensive electricity.
The only way this project survived was because Amazon stepped in to buy the expensive Desert Wind electricity. Even though Amazon was alerted to the national security issue involved here, they chose to look
away. This appears to be a classic example of greenwashing!
Ten, it is with the knowledge of these matters that the leaders of the NC General Assembly have formally appealed to the new Trump administration to intervene, in an effort to protect our national security.
Congressman Walter Jones (co-chair of the House Armed Services Committee) wrote a good cover letter in support of the NC Legislators’excellent correspondence – which reprinted here as an addendum to this story.
Has there ever been an example where state legislative leaders have officially gone on record to ask the federal government to come in and shut down a wind project? No! Kudos to the NC state legislators for
taking a principled stand on a VERY important matter.
Big Brother’s control becomes much easier in a cashless society
NEW YORK CITY — Last month, more than 100 executives from some of the biggest financial institutions in the United States participated in a secret meeting, in which a company known as ‘Chain’ unveiled a technology that transforms U.S. dollars into a concept known as pure digital assets.
Reportedly, there were representatives from NASDAQ, Citigroup, Visa, Fidelity, Fiserv and Pfizer in the room, and they were told by this group about claims to be partnering with Capital One, State Street, and First Data. This “revolutionary” technology is intended to completely change the way we use money, and it would represent a major step toward a cashless society.
But if this new digital cash system is going to be so good for society, why was it unveiled during a secret meeting for Wall Street Bankers? Is there something more going on here than we are being told? None of us probably would have ever heard about this secret meeting if it were not for a report from Bloomberg.
The following comes from a Bloomberg article titled “Inside the Secret Meeting Where Wall Street Tested Digital Cash”:
On a recent Monday in April, more than 100 executives from some of the world’s largest financial institutions gathered for a private meeting at the Times Square office of NASDAQ Incorporated. They weren’t there just to talk about ‘blockchain,’ the new technology some predict will transform finance, but to build and experiment with the software.
By the end of the day, they had seen something revolutionary: U.S. dollars transformed into pure digital assets, able to be used to execute and settle a trade instantly. That’s the promise of a blockchain, where the cumbersome and error-prone system that takes days to move money across town or around the world is replaced with almost instant certainty.
So it is not just Michael Snyder from The Economic Collapse Blog that is referring to this gathering as a “secret meeting.” This is actually how it was described by Bloomberg. And I think that there is a very good reason why this meeting was held in secret, because many in the general public would definitely be alarmed by this giant step toward a cashless society. Here is more on this new system from Bloomberg…
While cash in a bank account moves electronically all the time today, there’s a distinction between that system and what it means to say money is digital. Electronic payments are really just messages that cash needs to move from one account to another, and this reconciliation is what adds time to the payments process. For customers, moving money between accounts can take days as banks wait for confirmations. Digital dollars, however, are pre-loaded into a system like a blockchain. From there, they can be swapped immediately for an asset.
“Instead of a record or message being moved, it’s the actual asset,” Ludwig said. “The payment and the settlement become the same thing.”
Why this is so alarming is because we are seeing other major moves toward a cashless system all over the world. In Sweden, 95 percent of all retail transactions are already cashless, and ATM machines are being removed by the hundreds. In Denmark, government officials actually have a stated goal of eradicating cash by the end of the year 2030. In Norway, the biggest bank in the country has publicly called for the complete elimination of all cash. Other nations in Europe have already banned cash transactions over a certain amount. Here are just a couple of examples…
Cash transactions of more than €2500 have already been banned in Spain, and France and Italy have both bannned all-cash transactions of more than €1000 euros.
Little by little, cash is being eradicated, and what we have seen so far is just the beginning. There are $417 billion cashless transactions that were conducted in 2014 and the final number for 2015 is projected to be much higher. The global push towards a cashless society is only going to intensify, because banks and governments both tend to really like the idea of such a system.
Banks really like the concept of a cashless society because it would force everyone to be their customers. There would be no more hiding cash in a mattress at home or trying to pay all of your bills with paper money. Under a cashless system, we would all be dependent on the banks, and they would make a lot more money whenever we swiped our cards or our ships were scanned.
Governments are seeing a lot of advantages in a cashless society as well. Their stated intentions are laudable. They tell us they would be able to crack down on drug dealers, tax evaders, terrorists and money launderers. However, the untold truth is that government would be able to watch, track, monitor and control virtually all of our financial transactions. Our lives would become open books to the government, and privacy concerns of our finances would be a thing of the past.
Beware: The potential for tyranny would be absolutely off the charts!
Just imagine a world where the government could serve as the gatekeeper for who is allowed to use the cashless system and who is not. They could require that we all submit to some sort of government-issued form of identification before being permitted to operate within the system, or it is even conceivable that a loyalty oath would be required. Of course if you did not submit to their demands, you could not buy, sell, open a bank account or get a job without access to the cashless system.
Hopefully people can understand where this is going. Paper money is a very important component of our freedom, and if it is taken away from us that will open the door for all sorts of abuse.
Even now, cash is slowly being criminalized in America. For example, if cash is needed to pay for a hotel room that is considered by federal authorities to be a suspicious activity that should be reported to the government. Of course it isn’t against the law to pay your hotel bill in cash just yet. But according to the government, it is the nature of a terrorist to pay cash – and such conduct needs to be watched closely.
There is no doubt whatsoever that a cashless society is not a case of if it happens, but rather when it happens. For years people have said that a cashless society will never occur as people will never accept it. This is fantasy delusion. People have long resisted paying their bills by direct debit and today major companies are forcing this method upon society at large. Many corporations charge extra to have paper accounts mailed to clients and seek to have people pay their bills online after they are delivered electronically.
A cashless society is a longing by large sections of our society. Governments of all persuasions want a cashless society to stop people of avoiding some payments and tax avoidance generally would be much easier to control without cash payments. Drug dealers and other criminals would be hindered considerably if cash were eliminated. These are the benefits that we are often told about. The reality is, of course, that all levels of society could be monitored and controlled much more effectively and economically with the elimination of cash.
A complete cashless society would see the prophecy in Revelation 16:13-18 fulfilled… And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is 600 threescore and six.
Several months ago, we wrote about the Tri-Lateral Commission whose stated aims in 1965 (when the group was formed) were that the world would be controlled by a One World Government and a One World Economy. Whether or not the subject of this article is connected to the attempts by the Global Banks to control your every personal and financial move is not clear. But there is an underlying cause and effect,which we have highlighted in this article.
United Nations’ brainchild, Agenda 21, thrives in today’s world
A short time ago, we wrote an article about UN Agenda 21, which is supposed to be a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Here, we expand on the topic and how it is proliferating. Let’s examine 17 goals of the program:
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
The only answer the plan offers for eliminating poverty is redistribution of wealth. This document calls for “equal rights to economic resources.” That means government is claiming an absolute power to take away anything that belongs to you to give to whomever it deems more deserving. That is government-sanctioned theft. These are only Band-Aids that solve nothing. Tomorrow those on the bread lines will still need more. The result is poorer people. There is not a single idea in these plans to give the poor a way to earn their own wealth so that they no longer need government handouts.
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
UN documents go into great detail on controlling food supplies. They detail enforcing “sustainable farming tactics,” which have proven to force up the cost of food production while decreasing the yield. It is basically the old Soviet practice of farm control that turned the bread basket of the world into mass starvation. The document details the use of government controlled seed and plant banks… “To ensure access to a fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as internally agreed.” In other words, our future food sources will be put into the hands of politically connected bureaucrats who have never been on a farm.
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being of everyone at all ages.
This means cradle to grave control over how and where we live and what we are permitted to eat. The healthy lives they promote means basically forcing us out of our cars and into walking and riding bikes as we are relocated into controlled high-rise apartment buildings sanctioned by the government.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive, equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
We learned a long time ago that lifelong learning is only necessary as a means to continually apply behavior modification practices to ensure we maintain the desired attitudes, values and beliefs to live and a global village. Give the children a well-rounded academic knowledge in grade school and they will be able to take care of educating themselves on any new developments that arise in their lives.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
The rainbow flag flies as we ignore Sharia Law and its war on women.
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation.
Ask California how sustainable water control is working for them as these policies have torn down water systems and dams to “free the rivers.” The original pioneers found the land to be a desert. They built a sophisticated water control system that resulted in an emerald green paradise. Now, as sustainable policies are being enforced, they are witnessing the return of the desert, destroying productive land. Meanwhile, across the nation, the EPA is moving to take control of all the water in the United States. Control the water, control the population.
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
Their solution is to ban oil and enforce wind and solar power. Every study across the nation and around the world has proven that use of ‘modern energy’ sources are unreliable. They force up the cost of energy and some reports say they are making people sick when forced to live under the wind turbines. Moreover, the carnage of the birds and bats that are being chopped up and fried by these “sustainable” energy sources goes against everything environmentalists told us about protecting species.
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.
One thing our 23 years of Agenda 21 have proven, there is no economic growth. Several nations in Europe that really tried to live by the sustainable guidelines on energy and border controls are now dumping those programs as fast as they can to save their economies. And who decides what is productive for decent work? We leave it to the bureaucrats to decide.
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
Sustainable industrialization means destroying industry. No real industry can remain in business under a government-managed economy with its shifting rules and constant increase in taxes. Government doesn’t create industry or prosperity. Government’s real job is to provide protections of the marketplace so real innovators are free to create new ideas, industries and opportunities. Government itself is a job killer when it gets in the way.
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries.
This is another form of redistribution of wealth that forces industries from first world to third world nations. This is done by adopting sustainable policies to drive up production cost, forcing companies to take their factories to the poorer nations. The second trick is to exempt those poorer nations from the very environmental rules and regulations that caused the factories to move in the first place. Can anyone explain how this helps the environment? It doesn’t. It simply makes everyone equally poor. This is an assault on national sovereignty.
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
This is Smart Growth, which promises a utopia of families and neighbors playing and working together, riding bikes, walking to work in stress free communities. It really means the end of private property rights, single-family homes, and stack and pack high rises where residents are overtaxed, overregulated, rents are high and individual thoughts and actions are viewed as a threat to the well-ordered society. And by the way, the American Planning Association did a study to see if their smart growth plans worked and their own report concluded that Smart Growth does not work.
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
What more is there to say? Control from the top down.
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
Here is the root of the entire plan. How many scientific reports do real scientists have to present to show this is the greatest scam ever devised to create a reason for government to control every aspect of our lives? Let the Global Warming scare mongers tell you their true purpose in their own words: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment). Justice built on a lie? And here is another quote to make it even clearer. “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in the in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – American Senator Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation). The end justifies the means!
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.
Control the water, control society. This one is really aimed at destroying the oil industry in order to enforce wind and solar power. This is the UN pounding its chest to become the central global government it has always sought to be. It has no more right to the seas than it does to the air we breathe or the surface of the moon.
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt the reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss.
Have you been watching the news as the greatest fires in history are destroying millions of acres of forests? Why is this happening? Because of sustainable forest management that refuses to allow removal of dead trees from the forest floor. This creates as much as 10 feet of kindling that makes massively hot and unmanageable fires. That kindling is so thick that even small animals have a hard time getting through it. If you want to save a forest, send an environmentalist back to his high rise in New York City.
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
This is Social Justice, which really means social engineering. Have you ever once witnessed an effective or accountable institution coming out of the United Nations? By its very nature, the UN is unaccountable. Who would be the entity to oversee that accountability? Every one of these programs outlined in the proposed 2030 Agenda creates money, power and unaccountability at every level of government. That is why government is now running out of control and people are feeling so helpless in trying to deal with their governments. Goal 16 should be named: “Fox Running the Hen House.”
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.
This means the re-boot of Agenda 21, because that was the original “global partnership.” This goal is a call for all of the treaties, plans and schemes devised in the massive UN meetings to be made the law of the globe. It is total global government and it is a sure highway to misery, destruction of human society, individual thought , motivation and dreams. In 1992, they told us that Agenda 21 was just a suggestion. Today, after experiencing the transformation of our society that Al Gore called for, we know it was much more. Now the power elite (which prey on the poor and helpless) are determined to finish the job. They are fast moving toward the goal of eliminating individual nation states; controlling individual actions and wiping private property ownership from the face of the Earth. Their goal is to make us all equal in the same chains to assure none of us can disrupt their well-ordered utopian nightmare.
Now our time machine has brought us back from 1992 to the present. As we disembark, one voice should be ringing in our years loud and clear from the 1992 Earth Summit. In a clear and concise voice we were warned what Agenda 21 was designed to do. We were told that it wasn’t “the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse, it was our responsibility to bring that about!” And remember, that wasn’t said by just an interested bystander. It was from the official statement of the Chairman of the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong.
Reporters Note: Many of the goals outlined above are in practice today. When we talk about the “Trans Pacific Partnership and Globalization,” these are the things that are being referred to, but not said. Everyone should be scared to death that we are marching toward the type of society envisioned by the framers of Agenda 21 in 1992. Everyone knows that there are political elements in our world that are very patient and which will seek to achieve their goal or goals by any means necessary. That is exactly what we have here.
International trade relations make for strange bedfellows!
A few weeks back, we wrote an article about the Trans Pacific Partnership and the fact that it was more a wish list of liberal ideals than it was about trade. These proposed ‘trade deals’ impact other elements of society throughout the world.
What is not being reported in the nation’s news media is the fact that two candidates for President of the United States (who could not be more different) are on the same page when it comes to globalist trade treaties.
Of course, we refer to Donald Trump, the fast-talking cowboy from New York City, who remains in the running; and Bernie Sanders, a progressive socialist, whose campaign could not best that of Hillary Clinton.
If the press were to connect the dots, it would reveal that millions of Americans from both camps actually recognize the danger of these treaties.
When a preliminary vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) stalled in Congress last year, President Obama and his team jumped on the phones and stayed there night and day trying to drum up support. And now, when the UK has exited from the European Union, this has thrown a monkey wrench into the US-EU Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership otherwise known by a similar acronym, TTIP.
Alert readers will recall that when this was occurring, the Obama flew to London where he shockingly lowered the boom on the British government and the British public, warning that an independent UK would have to stand at the back of the line when it comes to formulating a separate trade pact with the U.S.
President Obama, as you might remember, was tutored on foreign policy, after his election in 2008, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, an intellectual representative from Columbia University, who with David Rockefeller, started the Tri Lateral Commission in 1965.
You will also recall that Brzezinski was the national security advisor for President Carter. In 1969 he wrote “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
There is little doubt, that these globalist trade deals are, indeed, exercises in eliminating nations and turning over the economy of the world to mega-corporations, which includes the banking industry. Approximately one year ago, we wrote about the Tri Lateral Commission and stated that their objectives were twofold: a One World Government and a One World Economy. As you read this article, you cannot come to any other conclusion about what the Trans Pacific Partnership means to the economies of the world.
For example, as reported on Oct. 16, 2015, the TTIP embodies Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), whereby corporations can sue governments when their profits are endangered. For instance, Monsanto could sue the EU for refusing to accept the import of genetically modified food crops, thereby enabling a Monsanto end-run around Europe’s tight restrictions.
There are around 500 similar cases of businesses versus nations going on around the world at the moment and they are all taking place before arbitration tribunals made up of corporate lawyers appointed on an ad hoc basis, which according to War on Wants John Hilary, “are little more than kangaroo courts with a vested interest in ruling in favor of business.”
Other agreements embedded in the TTIP Treaty (which by the way, is a super-secret contract very few people are permitted to read) as negotiations now wrap up. Several points have been leaked:
- 1. Under the TTIP, the provincial European notion of testing chemicals for safety before unleashing them on the population would be bulldozed, opting instead for the ‘superior’ American method: trench the people, ignore the consequences and invent a consensus that the chemicals or pesticides are harmless. This would lead to less monitoring of clinical trials of new medical drugs. Translation: Pharmaceutical companies would be able to conceal trials that revealed devastating harm.
- 2. Food safety and environmental standards would be compromised on both sides of the Atlantic. European public services for water, health and education would open their doors to privatization by US companies looking for ways to turn these services into profit-making enterprises — at higher prices. Big Pharma, with its load of toxic drugs, would exploit new markets by infiltrating nation’s public health services.
- 3. Consider the recent astounding actions of US Trade Representatives in Europe. Using the TTIP negotiations as a blunt weapon, Trade Representatives pressured the European Union to modify its stance on pesticides.
One headline says it all: “EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents show…’
All this is what Obama has been pushing. All this is what Hillary Clinton has been pushing. At least some of this is what Trump and Bernie have been criticizing.
The other acronym, TPP, is another of the blockbuster trade treaties on the table, that involves 12 member nations, in the Pacific region. The TPP contains similar provisions for mega-corporations: the tribunals that supersede national courts; the shift of controls on chemical safety to corporations; greater roughshod international intrusions by pharmaceutical and pesticide companies.
It is a grotesque frame up and set up masquerading as a more equitable global economy.
Of course, implicit in all these trade treaties is the exporting of jobs from countries where wage and costs are higher to countries where they are lower — as low as possible, with as few environmental regulations as possible, with as few unions as possible. It is more than interesting that the biggest voting block in the US — the sum of Trump and Bernie supporters — are solidly against these Globalist treaties.
But there they are — supporters on opposite sides of the fence, glaring at each other — while Hillary Clinton rides her horse down the center stripe.
Free Trade is presented by our politicians and giant corporations as savior of the world. The truth of the matter is quite the reverse. Rather than create jobs and grow the economies of the nation states, they are actually destroying both.
Free trade has been the desire of the globalists in the United States for over a century as revealed in the book and TV series, The Untold History of the United States, a television series by Oliver Stone. For the most part, Mr. Stone is not known to be a conservative movie director but in this case, he is on point with the views of those that oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership.
And remember that it was the Republican led Congress that gave President Obama fast-track authority to implement this agreement, if it were ratified by countries whose gross domestic products equal 85 percent of the combined GDP of all signatories. It is certainly interesting to see who is one which side of this very controversial subject.
On Oct 5, The County Compass co-sponsored a well-attended Candidate Forum in Elizabeth City.
Candidates for the At-Large seat on the Pasquotank County Commission did not have sufficient time to answer questions in depth. For this reason, we submitted follow up questions to the incumbent commissioner, Jeff Dixon, and to the challenger, Sean Lavin.
In so doing, we trust that this will provide our readers with a side by side comparison – helpful in deciding just who to vote for. The questions were submitted two weeks ago but due to the death of Commissioner Dixon’s mother in law, his answers were delayed. We present them to you now.
Question 1: How do you view the future of County Tax Revenue?
Mr. Dixon: The future of County Tax Revenue is starting to look very bright. It took Pasquotank County eight years to dig itself out of a financial hole when the housing market crashed. Before the crash, Pasquotank County was issuing anywhere from one to two permits a day. On average, today we are lucky to issue five in any given month. Our County Board was able to hold down expenses and the county debt during these past eight years. Now, the effort should start paying for itself with no tax increases.
We received a new favorable credit rating of an AAA up from a –AAA. We did short-term borrowing at favorable interest rates while paying down our long term debt. We have many new building projects in our county that will help our property tax grow, especially the $300 million dollar Amazon Wind Farm, which will be contributing over $300,000 to our General Fund, the $15 million Tanglewood Shopping Center and along with several large apartment complexes. We also have the $10 million escrow money that was set aside from the lease of the county- owned hospital until all liabilities are satisfied and after that, the money belongs to the county to do what it wants to with it.
Mr.Lavin: I want to keep property tax rates that are appropriate, reasonable and comparable to similar communities in North Carolina. I feel that the current property tax rates and fees, like our solid waste, are too high. Especially when compared to neighboring counties. Nobody wants to pay more taxes. When determining property tax rates, other sources of revenue must be considered, including additional sales tax revenues through economic growth and a broadening tax base through the recruitment of businesses and citizens to locate in Pasquotank County. I would encourage the seeking of grant funds, where appropriate, to help invest in economic development projects. The key here is growth and development.
I am confident that we can invest in our community in a fiscally responsible way, figuring out how to balance the budget and keep the tax burden reasonable, while providing the county with the governance and the services it needs to move forward and make Pasquotank County more attractive for businesses and families to move here. That is my definition of fiscal responsibility.
Question 2: Are there any cost reductions that might be utilized to reduce costs?
Mr. Dixon: 80 percent of our budget is made up of services that we are required to provide or the state can take us over. Services that aren’t required are: Senior Centers, Libraries, Planning, Animal Control, and Central Communications but are all still vital services. As commissioner, I pushed to have the City and County merge our Park and Recreation Departments and let the city run it. There are other departments like our planning and inspections that I have pushed to be merged with Elizabeth City as well, but have met with resistance on both of these ideas.
Mr. Lavin: The most valuable asset of any organization is its workforce, and a motivated and engaged workforce is the most efficient and effective way to carry out important work. Contributing factors to a strong workforce are having a fair market competitive wage and benefits program along with recognition programs. Likewise, having visible support, appreciation, and respect from the county’s elected leaders will go a long way in creating the environment for a motivated and engaged staff.
Creating a program that financially rewards and recognizes employees that have ideas for making the county more efficient with its resources will go a long way toward that end. Workers at all levels can have ideas on how to save the county money. Whether it is equipment that is underutilized or processes that are inefficient, rank and file employees know best how to improve their departments.
In addition, retaining good employees at all levels helps to reduce costs associated with on-boarding and training. Employees with seniority are often more efficient at their job duties. Recent decisions by the Commissioners regarding compensation and other matters of County employees have eroded their job satisfaction and morale. I will help ensure that the County is employing the best management practices in order to have the most engaged, satisfied, effective, and efficient staff possible.
While not necessarily an operational cost component, I am a firm believer in competitive bidding on County purchases over $10,000. If elected, I will push to implement a policy that makes this a mandatory process for County procurement.
Question 3: Would you favor the use of Electronic Time Cards to verify employee comings and goings?
Mr. Dixon: Yes, I would, but the expense has to be justified with what savings it would produce.
Mr Lavin: The structure of this question nearly implies that there are issues with employees committing fraud with regard to their time-keeping. If that is the case, Supervisors should be dealing with those issues on a case-by-case basis.
In this day and age, keeping current employees safe is probably just as important, if not more. Electronic cards would only be somewhat effective when you consider the travel throughout the county that certain employees do in the performance of their duties. Badge in, badge out access cards can be dual purpose, but the primary responsibility of keeping up with employees belongs to the supervisors.
Supervisors and even higher-level managers must make it out to “inspect what they expect” with regard to employee engagement and performance. When combining the benefits of controlling access to county buildings and facilities with the benefits of upgrading to more modern timekeeping for county employees, I would support incrementally implementing electronic badge cards for county employees.
Is this a side effect of the national economy?
It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words — especially true with the housing market. The second quarter saw a record broken, which few will be celebrating.
Homeownership sank to a 50-year low of 62.9 percent of our population. This dismal record marked a continuation of a downward trend that began in 2004, when the figure topped out at 69.2 percent.
The decline has continued almost unmitigated through the most frenzied days of the housing bubble, through the Great Recession, through the housing market recovery and during the seven-year-long economic expansion.
It is safe to say quite a few parents are experiencing the practical reality of this drop in homeownership. After all, many of those within the age demographic typically looking to buy a first home are instead returning from college to live in mom and dad’s basement!
According to new research from the Pew organization, more young adults ages 18 to 34 are living with parents (32.1 percent) than either married or cohabitating (31.6 percent) — or living alone or as the head of a household (14 percent).
This is a historic first for the United States. And it’s a stunning shift from 1960 when more than 60 percent of this demographic cohort lived with a significant other and only 20 percent lived with parents.
Is soft economic growth the primary culprit behind dramatically higher proportion of post-college adults living at home and hence delaying real estate purchases? What is incontrovertible are the plunging levels of labor force participation for young adults. For instance, more than one in four adults age 22 to 24 are not even looking for a job. As we all know, obtaining a mortgage is next to impossible in such a circumstance.
Of course, having a job is only part of the question in buying a home — affordability also comes into play. Although interest rates remain at historic lows, housing costs have rebounded since the financial crisis. The S & P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index declined more than 25 percent from the peak of the housing market boom in early 2007 until the post-crisis bottom in early 2012.
However, in just four short years, nearly the entire decline has been erased, with the index soaring 30 percent. Since 2000, this measure of home prices has increased 80 percent — roughly twice the overall inflation rate during this same timeframe.
As the shift to renting (in addition to living with parents) continues, ultra-low rental vacancy rates are being seen. Last quarter, the rental vacancy rate dipped to just 6.7 percent — down from more than 11 percent following the Great Recession, and lower than at any point in more than 30 years.
This tight rental market, has helped produce sharply rising rental costs — a jump of 20 percent since the recession ended in the middle of 2009. Current economic indicators do not seem to suggest a return to normality on this homeownership front. Residential construction spending remains more than one-third below the levels seen a decade ago. More disconcerting is the level of new privately owned housing starts.
This past decade realized the lowest number of housing starts of any other 10-year period in the past half-century. After peaking at an annual rate of 2.3 million in January 2006, housing starts plunged to 400,000 by the end of the Great Recession. Now, seven years into the recovery, annual housing starts are barely half that level at 1.1 million.
In fact, from 1960s through 2007, housing starts were only lower than present levels in three of those years.
For many families, a personal residence is their single most valuable asset. Purchasing a home early in one’s career can provide at least a foundation for retirement security with the forced equity building related to a long-term mortgage. As such, many economists are troubled by this decline in homeownership. Time will tell if acceleration of economic growth reverses this trend.
Well-known billionaire funding ambitious efforts
Annotated by John Woodard
BALLOT BOX — Various organizations, funded by George Soros, are attempting to rewrite the rules of elections in order to make it easier for Democrat wins. The millions of dollars that these organizations are providing seek to fundamentally transform our election rules in favor of Democrats, Racial Interest Groups, Progressives and Organized Labor.
So how are they doing this, and what are the methods? Most people are familiar with the recent court decision pertaining to Voter Identification. But the agenda of the left goes way beyond that single issue.
Tens of thousands of aliens are on voter rolls across the country and they are voting. The Soros groups oppose efforts to find and remove aliens from the voter rolls, because the aliens are voting the way they want them to. Voter ID is only one component of the election integrity process. Among the other methods, are the following:
Block Citizenship Verification
There are various means by which election officials can detect aliens on their voter rolls, but the cooperation of the federal government is required. President Obama, and the federal government have interfered with efforts to detect and remove citizens from voter rolls. There is a database that lists every alien in the federal immigration process — that either caught illegal aliens, those on visas, or those seeking citizenship. Federal law mandates that the states shall have access to the data; however, the Obama administration has made it next to impossible to access that data. Florida has even had to sue the United States before it was permitted a measure of access to this data. The Department of Justice sued to stop Florida citizenship verification efforts even when access to the database was granted.
The Soros groups have made early voting a top priority. In the past, elections were held on Election Day, which proved harder to get the unmotivated voter to the polls. Early voting allows the organized labor machine and other progressive organizations make that far easier. Early voting is so important to the modern Democrat party that they sued Ohio and North Carolina under the Voting Rights Act when those states dared to reduce it by a few days. They tried to constitutionalize early voting by claiming efforts to shrink it violated the Constitution. In the case of North Carolina, they defeated the efforts of the left but the federal appeals court reversed that decision, and Ohio also lost to the left.
Out of Precinct Voting
Out of precinct voting means that if you do not have a clue where to vote, it shouldn’t matter.
Out of precinct voting is an agenda item for the fundamental transformation of American elections because advocates say it makes it easier to vote, and who really needs to know where they are supposed to vote? But election officials — who must manage many different ballots depending on where you might live – usually disagree!
Witness what is going on in Virginia to learn the lawless lengths to which Democrats will go to give convicted criminals the right to vote. Even some Republicans have been hoodwinked by the rhetoric. A felon who wishes to reintegrate into the political process should need to demonstrate repentance and a commitment to following the law. But felon-voting advocates don’t care much about redemption. All they care about is the number of voters that they might gain from this process.
Mandatory Voter Registration
Soros organizations seek to end voter registration. Registration takes forethought and initiative so the left is firmly against it. A variety of groups have pushed for what they call “automatic” voter registration. Someone could become a registered voter automatically if they appear on a government database. People such as those who receive government benefits or other social services are examples.
Dirty Voter Roles
Leftist groups are opposing efforts to clean up voter rolls across the country. Millions of phony and obsolete registrations infect the rolls. These groups have sued the Ohio Secretary of State and have interfered in other attempts to keep the rolls clean. They say their aim is to prevent a valid voter from being removed improperly, but they cannot find even a single voter who has been removed contrary to law. Dirty roles allow criminals to exploit vulnerabilities in the system. Contrarily, there are examples of people who voted multiple times because of dirty voter rolls.
Foreign Language Ballots
Federal law requires foreign language ballots in certain jurisdictions. In practice that means most urban areas have foreign language ballots. Jurisdictions such as Philadelphia, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, Cleveland, Los Angeles and Las Vegas are among the jurisdictions cited. It is not true that because one must have an understanding of English to become a citizen that they must vote in English. The Voting Rights Act says otherwise.
Same Day Registration
Same day registration is a law that allows you to walk into a polling place for the very first time, register to vote and promptly cast a regular ballot. We have been dealing with this same issue in North Carolina for several years, which was part of the Voter Identification law passed by the legislature and then struck down by the courts.
State Qualification Instructions on Registration Forms
Groups like the ACLU and the League of Women Voters are trying to prevent states from including state qualification rules on the federally mandated voter registration form. The federal voter registration form is a product of ‘Motor Voter’ passed in 1993. It forces states to accept the form from all registrants in order to vote in federal elections. Some states have enacted qualification instructions, such as proof of citizenship requirements. Preserving a federal voter registration form without state qualification requirements is a top agenda item of the institutional left.
National Popular Vote
The left wants to eliminate the Electoral College as the deciding factor in election determinations. Instead, they want a national popular vote. It is clear why this is being sought. The left in this country has a strong hold in inner cities. If the Electoral College is removed, the impact on elections in this country will be dramatic. Essentially, the major cities will decide all elections and there will be no influence by more rural parts of our nation in the decision about whom we elect. The Electoral College centralizes power over state elections, away from Washington and to the statehouses.
Remember that this discussion first came to the forefront in Bush V Gore when it was claimed that Al Gore had won the popular vote but lost the election in the Electoral College. Clearly, the left has not given up this fight.
Reporter’s note: This is from an article written by J Christian Adams, a former official of the Justice Department. Christian News Network published the article on its website.
What hides behind that green curtain would spook the heck out of public
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Many people in this country who oppose the Fed have claimed that this institution is an instrument of debt. In recent years, the Fed has been “buying” bonds in order to provide additional leverage to Banks and the Federal Government in order to maintain liquidity in the monetary system of the United States.
In so doing, the administration of President Obama has been able to go deeper and deeper in debt driving the national deficit to nearly $20 trillion. With nearly unlimited cash, spending money on war in the Middle East as well as funding social spending programs is easy!
Many people know of the Federal Reserve as being the monitor of inflation and possible instigator of growth in the economy. What most people do not know is that the Federal Reserve actually is a profit making operation. In 2015, for example, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $100.2 billion and transferred $97.7 billion to the United States Treasury.
The Federal Reserve System has numerous functions that it addresses in its dealings with member banks every day. Among them are: dealing with possible panics in the banking system; striking a balance between private interest of banks and the centralized responsibility of government, which includes supervising and regulating banking institutions and protecting the credit rights of consumers; to manage the nation’s money supply; to maintain the stability of the financial system and contains systemic risks and financial markets; to provide financial services to depository institutions including facilitating the exchange of payments among banking regions and to respond to local liquidity needs and, finally, to strengthen U.S. standing in the world economy.
In the role of central banker, the Fed serves as a ‘banker’s bank’ as well as that of the Government’s Bank. In the former instance, it helps to assure the safety and efficiency of the payment systems. In the latter instance, the Fed processes a variety of financial transactions. The United States Treasury keeps a checking account with the Federal Reserve through which incoming federal tax deposits and outgoing government payments are handled as part of this relationship.
The Fed sells and redeems U.S. government securities such as savings bonds and treasury bills. Through its division of engraving and printing, the Treasury produces the nation’s cash supply and, in effect, sells the paper currency to the Federal Reserve Banks at cost and coins at face value. The Fed then distributes cash money to financial institutions in various ways, but most of these cash transfers are merely entries in a computer system upon which the banks operate at the local and regional level.
Federal funds are the reserve balances also known as Federal Reserve Deposits that private banks keep at their Federal Reserve Bank. In so doing this provides a mechanism for private banks to lend the funds to one another.
As we all will recall, Congressman Ron Paul has advocated that there should be an audit of the Fed, something that has been opposed by both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations over several years. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act was enacted in 1978 and established that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Banks may be audited by the Government Accountability Office.
The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and to examine various regulatory and bank functions. But the Congress and Presidential Administrations have blocked every attempt to conduct a thorough “Forensic Audit.” There are many possible reasons for the position that has been taken so far, but the most prevalent of those is that no one wants the public to see what is behind the curtain.
The Fed considers itself an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president. However, it does receive funding appropriated by Congress.
The Fed serves as a lender of last resort when institutions cannot obtain credit elsewhere. In creating the Federal Reserve System, it was the intention of Congress to limit financial crises that had periodically swept the nation. Through its Open Market Committee, the Fed has attempted to control interest rates that banks charge each other, known as the Prime Interest Rate. In recent years, in an attempt to provide liquidity to the banking system, the Fed has been buying these bonds through a mechanism known as Quantitative Easing.
This is a fancy way of saying that they are pumping money into the banks in order to help them through the recessionary period, including the devaluing of the U.S. Dollar. Under this premise many of these banks were determined to be “too big to fail.” Whether or not the intention was to boost the stock market, the fact is that many Banks and Investors have been investing in the Stock Market.
Each time the Fed hints at raising interest rates, the stock market tanks — causing the Fed to re-evaluate plans. This has caused investors such as Jim Rodgers and David Stockman, among others, to claim that the Fed and its Chairman Janet Yellen have no clue on how to manage the economy.
The current prime rate is so low that the Fed has no ability to lower rates any further. There had been some talk of negative interest rates in recent months but fortunately, it appears that those discussions have ended, at least for now. The Fed is poised to raise rates after the election, which certainly will be met with opposition, as it has before.
The core policy of the Fed is 2 percent inflation and 0% interest rates are kicking the economic stuffing’s out of Flyover America. They hammer middle and lower income people while showering the top tier of financial asset owners with tremendous windfalls of un-earned gain. So the nation’s central bank is essentially a reverse Robin Hood on steroids. They are killing wages, sending jobs offshore, trashing savers, subsidizing the banks, gifting Wall Street speculators with considerable financial bubbles and rigging the markets to ensure that the Democrats win.
Hillary Clinton will continue to talk about the “independence” of the Fed claiming that by slashing interest rates, they saved the American economy. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand enough on this subject to know who is right and who was wrong. Many people at the upper end of the economic scale know that the system is rigged and that financial markets have done nothing to preserve their shrinking living standards and diminishing job prospects.
In principle, lower income taxes are better than higher taxes and deliberate re-distribution by the state is always doubly bad. But the villain of 2016 is not the IRS tables — it’s the central bank’s printing press.
Whatever you think about the various economic proposals put forth by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, one thing that should stand out (which is not getting much press) is the prospect of trillions of dollars that have been parked overseas by multinational corporations that under the Trump plan could be brought back to this country to stimulate growth and jumpstart our lagging economy.
Most people in the financial world have looked at both economic plans and have judged the Trump plan to be more pro-growth. This issue will not be one that will receive very much press, but one that could have the most impact on stimulating growth and jobs in the near term.
This has been a thumbnail sketch of the Federal Reserve and what it all means. Though complex, the basics mentioned here may help you delve further for yourself.
Oct. 5 forum alternative to Trump – Hillary mudslinging
ELIZABETH CITY – This much-anticipated Candidate Forum is set for Wednesday, Oct. 5, at 6:30 p.m. at the Pasquotank County Courthouse. The Elizabeth City Area Chamber of Commerce, the Daily Advance, and the County Compass newspaper have joined forces to produce the event. Originally, two forums were planned — one by the County Compass and the Chamber, and the other by the Daily Advance — but consolidating the sessions offers the candidates a wider audience.
State Sen. Bill Cook, the incumbent, is a Republican from Beaufort County, being challenged by Democrat Brownie Futrell, also from Beaufort County. Cook is a retired Electric Company executive who served one term in the State House before being elected to the State Senate. Futrell is the former publisher of the Washington Daily News.
In the NC House contest, incumbent Bob Steinburg, a Republican from Chowan County, is running against Sam Davis, a Democrat from Pasquotank County. Steinburg is a retired salesman and is known locally for a Conservative Column, which was printed in numerous papers around the state. Davis is a self-employed real estate broker who has run for office previously, including an unsuccessful challenge to the re-election of Mayor Joe Peel of Elizabeth City.
Current Pasquotank County Commissioners Frankie Meads and Lloyd Griffin are running unopposed. Both will offer opening and closing statements, but will not answer questions.
Democrat Jeff Dixon, who is an incumbent on the Pasquotank County Commission, faces opposition for his at-large seat from newcomer Sean Lavin, a non-affiliated candidate who obtained nearly 1100 citizen signatures in order to become qualified to file for election. Dixon is the President of City Beverage, a Budweiser distributor, while Lavin is a supervisor at T Com, the blimp manufacturer in Pasquotank County.
Candidates for the Camden Board of Commissioners are Ross Munro, a Republican; and, Samuel Shaw, a Democrat. Munro is a newcomer while Shaw has had a previous unsuccessful run for public office. Munro is retired Navy with 31 years service and now works as a program manager for a defense contractor. Mr. Shaw is the Pastor of the New Sawyer’s Creek Missionary Baptist Church.
The questioning will first be directed to the Senate candidates, then to the House candidates and finally to the Commissioners. In each instance, the incumbent will receive the first question and the challenger the second, then they will alternate for additional questions. After the first candidate replies, the other candidate will have the opportunity to respond.
After each grouping, questions from the audience will be provided. Audience questions will be in writing and reviewed jointly by Mike Goodman and John Woodard before being asked of the candidate.
The forum moderator is Mark Maland, a retired attorney, with the law firm of Hornthal, Riley, Ellis and Maland. A resident of the Pasquotank County area for a long time, Maland has served in this capacity in past forums and is known to be fair and impartial.
Questions will be on issues of taxation, wind energy, business development and HB2, among others. There has been considerable thought in developing the questions — an effort to engage the candidates in matters of importance on a wide range of topics.
So-called ‘Critical Theory’ gained traction in the turbulent ‘60s
NEW YORK CITY — A few months ago, we provided an article about the beginnings of liberalism in the United States and the relationship between the Fabian Socialists Society and American Universities. In the narrative that follows, we will discuss the growth of Marxism in this country and how this movement began to take hold in American Society.
In September 1930, the growing influence of Nazi Germany led the founders of The Institute for Social Research to prepare to move the Institute out of Germany and to establish a branch in Geneva, Switzerland. By 1933, after the rise of Hitler, the Institute left Germany for Geneva and then in 1934 moved to New York City.
In New York, it became affiliated with Columbia University and was renamed Studies in Philosophy and Social Science. It was there that much of the important work of the Frankfurt School thinkers began to emerge, and the Institute’s residence in New York contributed to its favorable reception in America and English academia.
Eventually, after World War II, the Institute reopened in Frankfurt in 1951.
The Frankfurt School is a school of social theory and philosophy associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University founded by Frankfurt during the interwar period. The School consisted of dissidents who could not find a home in the existent capitalist, fascist, or communist systems that had been formed at the time. Many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of capitalist societies in the 20th century. Critical of both capitalism and Soviet Socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to social development.
The term Frankfurt School arose informally to describe the thinkers affiliated or merely associated with the Frankford Institute for Social Research. It is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists use the term themselves.
In the German prewar context, its thinkers were particularly influenced by the failure of the working-class revolution in Western Europe — precisely where Marx had predicted that a communist revolution would take place by the rise of Nazism in such an economically and technologically advanced nation as Germany.
This led many of them to take up the task of choosing what part of Marx’s thought might serve to clarify contemporary social conditions that Marx himself had never seen. Another key influence also came from the publication in the 1930s of Marx’s Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts and The German Ideology, which showed the continuation of thought that underlay Marx’s thought process.
America today is dominated by a system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as political correctness. For many it is an annoyance and a self-parodying joke. But political correctness is deadly serious in its aims, seeking to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism, which sees culture, rather than the economy, as the site of class struggle.
Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures; instead they blamed the ruling class, which had bought off the workers by giving them rights and had blinded them with a false consciousness that led them to support national governments and liberal democracy.
The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxism analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as Critical Theory — essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, and conservatism.
Critical Theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced with new thinking that would become as much a part of elementary consciousness as the old one had been. Their theories took hold in the tumultuous 1960s, when the Vietnam War opened a Pandora’s Box of reevaluation and revolution.
The student radicals of the area were strongly influenced by revolutionary ideas, among them those of Herbert Marcuse, a member of the Frankfurt School who preached the Great Refusal, a rejection of all basic Western concepts and the embrace of sexual liberalism, and the merits of feminists and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the coming Communist Revolution.
Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society.”
When addressing the general public, contemporary advocates of Political Correctness– or Cultural Marxism, as it might just as easily be called– present their beliefs with appealing simplicity as merely a commitment to being “Sensitive” to other people and embracing values such as Tolerance and Diversity.
The reality is different. Political Correctness is the use of culture as a sharp weapon to enforce new norms and to stigmatize those who dissent from the new dispensation; to stigmatize those who insist on values that will impede the new PC regime: free speech and free and objective intellectual inquiry.
Reporters Note: As you are readers evaluate the information provided above, you can see clear and unmistakable links between what is happening in society today and the Marxist teachings of not only Karl Marx who may be the best known philosopher of his era, but also of course, many people who surrounded him at the time and ultimately came to America to foist this thinking upon us. When we look at issues of Political Correctness in the news today, we will now realize that this has been brought to us decades ago and is anything but a new phenomenon.