Letters to the editor July 7
Everyone should familiarize themselves with Agenda 21
Agenda 21 is a 40-chapter document that came from the 1992 UN Rio conference known as the Earth Summit that uses environmental controls to rule the world. The focus is sustainable development and how the human population will live or die in the 21st century.
It calls for a 90 percent reduction in the population. The mysterious Georgia Guidestones recommends limiting human population to 500 million. Some will be eliminated by malnutrition using a plan for controlling food, agriculture and medicine called Codex Alimentarius, some by diseases induced by forced vaccinations with tainted vaccines, some by war. The Apocalypse horsemen will ride at full gallop.
Twenty-five percent of the land will be wilderness with no humans surrounded by a buffer zone where a limited number of humans may enter and engage in allowed activities. National sovereignty will be surrendered to a global government ruled by super-rich elites. Agreements made at Waco, Texas, in 2005 will merge Mexico, Canada, and U.S. into the North American Union.
Private property will be abolished and private transportation replaced with public transportation. Those still alive will live like prisoners in constricted cities. The family will be restructured. Parents will provide children to be trained by government. There is much, much more to the program.
If anyone is interested in how their death has been planned or their lifestyle altered, they can Google Agenda 21, sustainable development, Codex Alimentarius, Earth Summit and Georgia Guidestones. These will lead to several websites and videos.
Alan C. Edwards
Writers using scare tactics about Ryan’s Medicare proposal
Recently there have been a couple columnists who have been providing information regarding Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposal for Medicare.
One columnist reports legislative information, and the other is a former educator. Neither have done citizens of this state or the country a service by their intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of what his proposal actually does.
Instead, they resort to the Democrats’ scare tactics of saying that he is going to throw seniors under the bus and take away their benefits. I would urge readers to research his plan themselves. It is easy to find online, or if you don’t have a computer, you can go to the library and ask for assistance in finding the information.
Do not take what columnists state as factual if they can’t back it up with citations and references to support their assertions. I would urge either or both of the two aforementioned columnists to provide readers with a column that explains the Democrats’ plan to save Medicare or Social Security. Perhaps they subscribe to the statement of Sen. Harry Reid who said, “There is no current crisis with Social Security.”
You would think that a political party which controlled the House and Senate, and was unable to pass a budget for the past two years, would have had time to come up with a plan. Maybe their idea of adding more than 30 million new people to Medicare while slashing more than $500 billion from the Medicare budget is how they do that.
Republicans trying to save Social Security
A few weeks ago I submitted a letter challenging statements about Social Security made by Janice Ayres in her May 31 column. Predictably, a few of Ayres’ friends and fans criticized my remarks and even demonized my character.
The most recent torpedo aimed came from Joetta Brown in the June 26 Appeal. While I agree with much of what Brown had to say, I was intrigued by her statement that any information she and Ayres share with the public “is based on research and not personal opinion.”
My research reveals that the intent of Paul Ryan, Dean Heller and the Republicans is to save and preserve Social Security, not decimate it as claimed by Ayres. Ryan’s proposal, supported by the House Republicans, guarantees that no senior 55 or older will have their Social Security or Medicare benefits changed.
Future recipients under the age of 55 will experience changes which must be negotiated by Congress in order to save and preserve the system.
Brown is correct when she states that the Social Security Fund has a “dedicated source of revenue.” What she doesn’t say is that very soon, when the Baby Boomers start retiring, the fund will be paying out more money than it is taking in.
Originally, Congress intended that the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund would compensate for negative revenues.
However, starting with the Lyndon Johnson administration and every subsequent Congress and president, they have diverted the surplus Social Security revenues to the government’s general operations budget.