Since the 1900′s the vast majority of the American population has dreamed about saying “NO” to the Unconstitutional, corrupt, Rothschild/Rockefeller banking criminals, but no one has dared to do so. Why? If just half of our Nation, and the “1%”, who pay the majority of the taxes, just said NO MORE! Our Gov’t would literally change over night. Why is it so hard, for some people to understand, that by simply NOT giving your money, to large Corporations, who then send jobs, Intellectual Property, etc. offshore and promote anti-Constitutional rights… You will accomplish more, than if you used violence. In other words… RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SENDING EVERY SINGLE PENNY!!! Is that so hard? The truth of the matter is… No one, except the Icelanders, have to been the only culture on the planet to carry out this successfully. Not only have they been successful, at overthrowing the corrupt Gov’t, they’ve drafted a Constitution, that will stop this from happening ever again. That’s not the best part… The best part, is that they have arrested ALL Rothschild/Rockefeller banking puppets, responsible for the Country’s economic Chaos and meltdown.
Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country’s direction.
It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world’s oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?
Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.
This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalize the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.
After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.
Great little victories of ordinary people While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government. Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.
Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.
The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.
This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.
The bankers are fleeing in fear returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.
Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.
In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.
To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.
Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.
The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.
The Bilderberg Group is 120-140 powerful people who meet each year to discuss policy. The meetings are closed to the public.
This graph we found on Facebook shows the members' connections to a ton of corporations, charities, policy groups and media. Everyone from Eric Schmidt to George Soros is a member. There are tons of conspiracy theories about the group, including that they control the world economy.
We took the findings with a grain of salt--after all, it's easy to trace an individual to a corporation and the graph doesn't specify what influence the member wielded.
But perhaps it's a compelling argument for why the meetings should be public.
Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).
On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”
The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.
A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.
Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.
Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.” Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order?
Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries.
Not surprisingly, a leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village..., she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.”
These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable. Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.”
Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”
If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.”
A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Today, America is not on board, but this situation may change if Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order.
LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.
In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space.
When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?
Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.
In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ”
The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.
If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.”
Globalist Treaties Terrible for America
By Victor Thorn
During a May 10 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Becky Fenger, a political columnist for Arizona’s Sonoran News, voiced her concerns to this writer in regard to a rash of globalist treaties being negotiated by the current administration.
“What are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thinking?” asked Mrs. Fenger. “I can’t understand why they would willingly hand over power to the UN. How can you reason with these people when it seems like they’ve lost their minds?”
When questioned about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mrs. Fenger replied: “Do you know how detrimental they are to our nation? We used to worry about communism and those who wanted to take over the U.S. But now we’re surrendering our sovereignty to the UN, which is filled with petty dictators. America should get out of the UN, since we pay the bulk of dues and always get voted against anyway.”
According to Mrs. Fenger, the dangers facing us are monumental.
“These treaties become the equivalent of law,” she said, “and it’ll take 161 countries to release us from them. Worse, I’m not sure if Congress is even aware of what’s going on, or if they understand how binding these treaties are.”
She continued: “Look at the ICC. Aggression is described as going to war without UN approval, which includes Russia and China. What kind of mind thinks that succumbing to this is a good idea?”
Mrs. Fenger next addressed one of Mrs. Clinton’s favorite pet projects.
“Hillary said it takes a village, not a parent, to raise children,” she said. “Their goal is really to get these little minds and teach them from infancy to love global government dictatorship. But why should we relinquish parental control when it’s been a guiding light throughout history? They want to disintegrate the family unit and replace it with government. It’s unconscionable. Our personal liberties have always frightened them, so their goal is to take freedom out of the hands of every individual.”
AFP broached the subject of Obama’s increasing use of executive orders.
“I used to think that a law couldn’t pass if it was unconstitutional, but what about eminent domain and the Kelo decision?” she asked. “I’ve lost all faith in what used to be known as common sense and following the Constitution. Obama has proved he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.”
The Kelo case refers to a 2002 Supreme Court ruling which found that private entities can take property for a price from private individuals who do not want to give it up if the private company can argue that the property will be used for the common good. Specifically, the case involved a house owned by Susette Kelo in New London, Conn. As it turns out, a developer bought Mrs. Kelo’s house, even though she didn’t want to move. After all the homes in the area had been bulldozed, however, funding for the developer’s project fell through, and the town was forced to take it over. It is now a landfill.
AFP also spoke with author Brandon Pierce, author of a novel about the Bilderberg group entitled Crisis Point.
He agreed, telling this writer on May 11, “Americans could be tried in a world court even after they’ve been acquitted in the U.S. It has a direct effect on all of us when an international body can decide what happens to our leaders and citizens.”
Is Hillary or Barack Wearing the Pants in the White House?
By Victor Thorn
Is Secretary of State and one-time Bilderberg attendee Hillary Clinton the shadow president of the United States, just as it was claimed she was de facto governor and president during her husband’s tenure in Arkansas and Washington, D.C.?
Doubters should be reminded of a Feb. 24, 2008 quote delivered by Barack Obama during a campaign stop in Loraine, Ohio. “She [Hillary] has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years.”
Obama knew full well of what he spoke. Journalist Scott Creighton’s Mar. 19, 2011 article, “President Hillary Clinton’s Shock and Awe,” began with this stark contrast. “While Hillary Clinton met with 22 world leaders to decide the fate of Libya, they kept Barack Obama in the back of the bus and let the real president take the lead.” Creighton also pointed out that while Obama golfed and vacationed, Hillary conferred with practically every world leader and dignitary imaginable.
A quick glance at the State Dept.’s travel itinerary reveals nearly 75 trips to foreign countries by Clinton where the real groundwork for a New World Order super-structure was being laid.
While some commentators call Hillary a “Globalist Grand Wizard,” her influence spread to the formation of Obama’s Cabinet after his 2008 election. In a March 18 article, Edward Ulrich wrote, “31 of the 47 people Barack Obama has named for appointments have ties to the Clinton administration, including Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner.”
To get a better idea of Hillary’s modus operandi, in a 2006 film entitledInside Man, Hollywood actress Jodie Foster analyzed her character’s role in remedying delicate situations. “She’s a fixer, a rich Madison Avenue lawyer who fixes things when they go wrong. Say you were a mayor and you got caught in bed with three dead hookers, I would be brought in to fix the situation.” When asked how her character did it, Foster replied, “Call in lots of favors. You use people and kind of puppet behind the scenes, manipulate them. She’s a dubious bad guy.”
The above words perfectly describe Hillary Clinton’s entire political career. In fact, HILLARY (AND BILL) THE MURDER VOLUME contains the following passage. “Hillary acted as an enabler and fixer to cover-up for her husband’s serial philandering and sexual reign of terror.”
But being a handler for Bill’s raging libido was minor compared to Hillary’s role in trafficking drugs through Mena Airport, the cover-up of Vince Foster and Ron Brown’s murders, Chinagate, and laundering money through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to finance their campaigns.
Learning the ropes from Washington, D.C.’s former fixer extraordinaire—longtime Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan—Hillary has always nurtured a comfortable relationship with Wall Street bankers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Indeed, during a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed, “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
With the Obama administration pursuing a number of globalist treaties that undermine American sovereignty, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the driving force behind these moves as she travels from country to country. According to the elitist’s worldview, individuals should be subordinate and powerless to collectivists, while nationalists are viewed as a distraction to be folded into the globalist whole.
During a July 17, 2009 CFR address, Hillary revealed: “We get a lot of advice from the council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
As Obama’s numbers and campaign donations drop… the rumblings of adding Hillary to the ticket as Veep… are growing louder!
For anyone out there that is cheering… You better do your homework! Hillary is just as much of a Progressive (pro-U.N., pro-NWO) as Obama; she supports the Muslim Brotherhood (More at: Weiner Fallout).
Hillary was George Soros’ Darling before Obama was!!
When you find yourself quibbling over whether you can vote for a Mormon or wishing your 1st choice for GOP had won the nomination… consider the options above. This is the choice!
Remember these photos below? Well nothing has changed much except a few of the elites have changed seats and many more of the little people have woken up…
HERE'S ONE FOR THE PHOTO ALBUM: Obama seems extremely pleased to be photographed surrounded by socialists, communists and terrorists... so much so, he gave the "thumbs up". Communist Obama and Communist Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, celebrate after agreeing on how to transform the world into a one big socialist planet via G20 financial reforms. Hugging them both is Socialist Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who has an extensive record of and criminal allegations, including mafia collusion, false accounting, tax fraud, corruption, sex with a minor, and bribery of police officers and judges. Summit host and socialist UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said the deal heralded a “New World Order”.
Also shown: Communist China's President, Hu Jintao; Socialists International member and South Africa's President, Kgalema Motlanthe; Prince Saud Al Faisal of Saudi Arabia (country source of fifteen 9/11 terrorists); Ethipoian socialist, terrorist and NEPAD head, Meles Zenawi; Turkey's domineering, anti-secularist and Islamic Extremist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and Thailand's Prime Minister and Democrat, Abhisit Vejjajiva, who ascended to power during the 2009 global economic crisis and may be forced from office due to dual citizenship (like Obama).
WHY IS THE U.S. LINKING ITS ECONOMY TO G20 COUNTRIES?
Kissinger in 2008: There will be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President - Why? Because both Obama and McCain we Progressives. The Democratic party has been virtually taken over and transformed by the Progressives, but there are Progressives with the Republican ranks as well. Americans must educate themselves and then vote accordingly. Remember what Jefferson said… in order for our Republic to survive… the populace must be educated and involved~
Hannan says people make it sound like global governance is a conspiracy theory… it is not! It is real! European and American leaders are now already talking about it out in the open everywhere (like it is a done deal)… and like with Obama’s rhetoric, too many Americans are not really listening or are too distracted to pay attention!
Hannan also says that you can’t have global governance and democratic votes and freedoms at the same time! He added that European press is showing the tea party as toothless yokels supporting unelectable candidates. And Hannan said that Chris Christy is exactly the kind of Politian we need to do what needs to be done and to win in these times, so if Christy is not going to run, the he is willing to support certainly seems like a better bet than what we have!
“George Soros met with Hillary and Obama. Soros said his agenda was to tear this economy down to the ground. Obama said, ‘no problem.’ Hillary said, ‘no way.’”
Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.
In an exclusive interview by WND, Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.
During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.
She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.
Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof.
This is a powerful video from a lady that has nothing to gain and probably everything to lose by coming forward with her information. It could well ruin her career in Hollywood as so many of the film industry are flaming liberals. It could also cost her her life.
I took note of how she described the Obama campaign’s reign of terror and intimidation and how well coordinated it was. I thought to myself that if they were bold enough to threaten the life of the Clinton’s daughter then have they made similar threats to all of the leading Republicans in both the House and Senate? Is this why Congress has remained so silent ever since Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s March 1st news conference where he provided the American people with the evidence that Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Cards are forgeries?
When you see how blatantly Obama has defied the US Constitution and federal law without any apology or excuses, it’s not hard to believe that he, like every other dictator in history, obtained his position by intimidation, threats and outright violence. Knowing he is capable of this has to make every single American extremely fearful if Obama gets re-elected.
And if the voter fraud will be as prevalent in November as it was in 2008, it seems a sure thing that he will be re-elected. Obama has had the DOJ strike down every voter ID law and any other measure taken, to reduce the chance of voter fraud. They have set the stage for an old fashioned Chicago style election with padded and illegal votes. Wait a minute, he is a Chicago politician, so guess he’s just following local history at a national level.
If he does get re-elected, I’m positive it will mean the end of free elections and free America. We will become another Soviet Union: a land run by an elite group of Marxists who will exploit all of the people for their own personal gain. America, for all intent and purpose will be dead if Obama is re-elected
According the the Los Angeles Chief Medical Examiner Lakshmanan Sathyavaglswaran, 43 year-old Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure and “hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with focal coronary atheroscerosis”, which is thickening of the heart muscle and hardening of the arteries for those who don’t speak Sathyavaglswaran-ish.
But you ask anyone who knew Breitbart, follows politics and media closely and especially anyone who has followed the Clintons and the Obama and they say… not so fast. I think many conservatives suspect foul play in Breitbart's death.
After all Breitbart conveniently died the day before he was launching his new website and just as he was going to launch a new campaign to vet Obama that he had announced at CPAC. Coincidental?
Written by Chuck Baldwin - Tuesday, 17 November 2009 10:37
According to a report in World Net Daily, "Troops in the United States' USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.
"The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the UN.
"It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit's service in North Africa in World War II."
The report also states, "The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif."
As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command "created to respond to national emergencies in North America." Readers should also be aware that the United States and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a "domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis." (Emphasis added.)
Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its sister organizations including the Bilderberger Group and the Trilateral Commission. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn't paying attention — or has an ulterior motive for denying it.
In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my website. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it here.
Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR's Task Force report entitled "Creating a North American Community," which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the U.S. Congress — or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.
As the WND report states, "The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives — 10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries."
In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)
For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR's philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM — and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch — without the slightest protest from virtually any U.S. Congressman or Senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America's merger into a multinational governing structure.
Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association, along with the vast majority of America's top educational institutions, and even America's leading churchmen (for example, mega-church pastor and author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country's sovereignty and independence.
Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama's policy reversal to continue President Bush's plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down U.S. highways? Where is Big Labor's opposition to Obama's decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?
Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped "pandemics" such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal healthcare, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing U.S. sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.
Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grass-roots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.
If America's pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could — almost single-handedly — turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson's "spirit of resistance" alive.
As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.
Sarah Palin might have sounded like an ally of Representative Michele Bachmann on Monday night when she assailed a short-lived Texas mandate that girls receive the H.P.V. vaccine, calling it a possible product of “crony capitalism.”
But, as she continues to consider her own presidential bid, the comments could also be interpreted as her first overt attack on Gov. Rick Perry, the man who signed the 2007 order -– a move he later withdrew and was forced to defend at the Republican debate on Monday night.
“I knew even at that time something was up with that issue,” Ms. Palin said on Fox News Channel after the debate, noting that Mr. Perry’s former chief of staff had ties to Merck, the company that manufactures the Gardasil vaccine. “And now we’re finding out, yeah, something was up with that issue. It was an illustration or a bit of evidence of some crony capitalism.”
All three politicians – Ms. Palin, Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry – would need to rely on both social conservatives and Tea Party activists to win the G.O.P. nod. So it’s not hard to see why the issue is proving appealing fodder for the two women. The can use it to undermine Mr. Perry’s credibility with social conservatives by noting that he would have required girls under 12 to be inoculated against the virus that causes cervical cancer, which is generally transmitted sexually. And the argument that his move was influenced by donations and ties to lobbyists appeals to Tea Party supporters skeptical of government authority and backroom political dealing.
When Ms. Palin first used the term “crony capitalism” earlier this month to describe generally the process by which lawmakers become wealthy by using taxpayer dollars to benefit corporations and donors, she was talking about Mr. Perry.
In fact, up to this point, she had resisted applying any criticism directly to him. Last year, she campaigned for Mr. Perry as he fought back a challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican gubernatorial primary. In January 2010, she posted a note on Facebook saying she looked forward to supporting him and other candidates “so they can continue to fight for our American values.” (The other two she mentioned by name, by the way: Senator John McCain and Mrs. Bachmann.)
During that race Ms. Palin said he “walks the walk of a true conservative,” and the two are thought to have a cordial relationship off the trail.
Up to this point in the G.O.P. primary, Ms. Palin has called Mr. Perry a “fine candidate” and defended him after he called Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s approach “treasonous,” saying he was “voicing great concerns that many of us share.”
And during a recent trip to Iowa, when asked to contrast their records as governor, the former Alaska governor declined, noting that Texas has a weak executive.
“That doesn’t mean he’s doing a better job or worse job than any other governor, including myself,” Ms. Palin said.
Mrs. Bachmann is taking the the “crony capitalist” line and running with it. We’re still waiting to see whether Ms. Palin lets the Minnesotan continue to be the sole beneficiary, or if she’ll start using the phrase in her own campaign.
About That Gardasil Mandate “Opt-Out” Perry Is Touting - Rick Santorum said at the CNN/Tea Party Sponsored debate, “If anything, this should have been an Opt-In not an Opt-Out! This is another over-reach of government. Will give vaccines at schools only for illnesses that can easily be passed from student to student during the normal school day process.”
In a bizarre maneuver, President Obama’s short flight on Marine One to Camp David Friday afternoon was reportedly diverted due to what White House press secretary Jay Carney tells ABC News was a “bad weather call.” (And crap… they are headed to Camp David after just retuning from the elaborate vacation at Martha’s Vineyard??)
The odd part is that, according to Accuweather.com, there was no precipitation across the entire region, including Camp David.
Light winds blew from the southeast at 10mph with mostly cloudy skies and temperatures in the mid-70′s.
ABC reports that the flight was diverted to an undisclosed landing near Frederick, Maryland and a motorcade drove Obama to nearby Camp David.
Carney claims the weather call was made before Obama and his younger daughter Sasha boarded the aircraft.
ABC adds:
Carney says they have now arrived safely at Camp David. It remains unexplained why the President would be allowed to board Marine One knowing that the landing site on the mountain was experiencing weather making a landing difficult.
The press first learned of the diversion when wire agency still photographers, who traditionally stand by at Camp David for news coverage in case of an emergency, were told by the military at the mountain top Marine base that the President would be motorcading.
The White House press office did not inform the daily travel pool which remains at the White House and does not make the helicopter trip to Camp David. The pool would normally accompany any bad weather motorcade to the retreat.
What then, could be the real reason behind the flight’s diversion?
This reminds me a bit of the time during the campaign where Obama vanished… remember?!? When he got the final nod from the power elites. He went with Hillary and with a nod the momentum switched from her to him…
Don’t remember that? Re-Cap Below:
Did they or didn't they? - Speculation about Obama, Clinton attending 2008 Bilderberger meeting
Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Va., site of the Bilderberg conference this weekend
WASHINGTON – Sen. Barack Obama ditched his unsuspecting press entourage yesterday to attend a secretive meeting with Sen. Hillary Clinton.
But where did that meeting take place? Was it at the secretive Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Va.? So far, neither campaign is talking.
The 56th Bilderberg meeting is still going on this weekend at the Westfields Marriott, according to various sources. But attendance is a well-guarded secret – along with the agenda, which tends toward the promotion of globalist ideas.
Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed Clinton and Obama met but declined to inform the press of the location of the meeting. However, it was reportedly not held at Clinton's Washington home. Hillary's spokesman also declined to give the location of the rendezvous.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Fox News the two candidates met at her house in Washington. Feinstein said she was working upstairs while Clinton and Obama sat by her fireplace.
Asked if Obama attended more than one meeting last night, Gibbs declined to "get into all the details."
Speculation about the pair meeting yesterday began when reporters traveling with Obama arrived at Dulles International Airport, in Northern Virginia, to find Obama was not aboard the plane, as was scheduled.
"Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane," the Associated Press reported.
Members of the press were outraged over the way Obama's campaign organizers covered up the meeting. Reporters were led to believe they would be getting on a plane back to Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago with the senator. But while they were in the airport, the presidential candidate remained in the area for a secret meeting.
Dulles is just three miles from the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, where Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, among other globalists, are gathered for the annual Bilderberg Group conference.
"Asked at the time about the Illinois senator's whereabouts, Gibbs smiled and declined to comment," the AP report continued.
Bilderberg is a highly-secretive meeting where the most influential men and women of North America and Western Europe meet ostensibly to discuss policy. But the group has spent years promoting a globalist agenda, according to reports from journalists who have penetrated the meeting.
The Bilderberg Group made a press release available explaining the agenda for the meeting.
"The conference will deal mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, U.S.-European Union relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran. Approximately 140 participants will attend, of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America," the release stated. "About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion."
Additionally, a list of the conference's attendees was released and included James A. Johnson, who was named this week to the three-person team vetting possible running mates for Obama. Rampant speculation in the blogosphere says the Obama-Clinton meeting last night was held to arrange the New York senator as Obama's vice-presidential candidate.
Attendees at the Bilderberg conference included Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the board of governors for the Federal Reserve.
Hillary Clinton is no stranger to Bilderberg. Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before he was elected president. According to reports, he attended again in 1999 when the meeting was held in Sintra, Portugal, and Hillary herself may have attended the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.
"Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?" one reporter asked Obama spokesman Gibbs in a heated exchange caught on camera by CNN.
"Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way, and that is what we are doing." Gibbs replied.
"Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting?" asked another reporter.
"I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting." Gibbs replied.
Obama's spokesman explained the Clinton meeting was not planned in advance, and it was a last minute decision to attend.
Hillary & Obama In Secret Bilderberg Rendezvous Campaign spokespeople refuse to disclose location of meeting, but reports admit Democratic candidates convened at "an event in Northern Virginia"
Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.
According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary's mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.
Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that Obama and Clinton held a private meeting last night but he refused to disclose where it taken place, except that it was not at Clinton's home in Washington, as had been widely reported. Hillary campaign managers also refused to disclose the location of the rendezvous.
"Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginiaand Obama was not aboard the airplane," reports the Associated Press.
Dulles just happens to be walking distance from the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderberg globalists are convening.
"Asked at the time about the Illinois senator's whereabouts, Gibbs smiled and declined to comment," the reports adds.
What is the only political "event" taking place in Northern Virginia at the moment? The Bilderberg Group meeting of course. Rather than taking the easier option of meeting at Clinton's Washington mansion, Obama and Hillary went out of their way to grace the Bilderberg elitists with their presence.
The neo-liberal website Wonkette, which had previously ridiculed "conspiracy theorists" for ascribing power to Bilderberg, seemed to take a somewhat different tone when it made the connection between Obama and Hillary's meeting and the Bilderberg Group.
"Guess who had a very private talky-talk in (maybe) romantic Northern Virginia tonight, probably at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Chantilly? Your Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton!," states the blog. "They really met and talked, in private, Thursday night. And really, it sounds like they did this at that creepy Bilderberg Group meeting, which is happening now, and which is so secret that nobody will admit they’re going, even though everybody who is anybody goes to Bilderberg."
To have the potential future President and Vice-President of America attend a conference that debunkers have dismissed as a mere talking shop for old white men once again underscores the real influence that Bilderberg enjoys.
Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has made the connection between the location of the Bilderberg Group conference this year and Obama and Hillary's decision to venture out to Chantilly for their confidential "tet a tet".
Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has yet uttered one word about 125 of the world's most influential power brokers meeting behind closed doors to discuss the future of the planet on U.S. soil - while being met by the probable future President of the United States.
Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.
Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Clinton's lie that he had not attended in 15 years).
As we reported last month, Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson will select Democratic candidate Barack Obama's running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America's future President.
Johnson also selected John Kerry's running mate John Edwards in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.
Johnson, who attended last year's Bilderberg meeting in Turkey, is a representative for Friends of Bilderberg, an offshoot group that organizes Bilderberg's annual meeting.
Hillary and Obama's attendance of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, and the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the fact, once again betrays the super-secretive nature and influential reputation that the 54-year-old organization still maintains.
The economic summit will take place this week near Washington
It was particularly difficult this year to find out when and where the annual conclave of world powerbrokers, the Bilderberg Group, would take place. Finally, it appears certain that the highly secret meeting of western political-military elites will take place from June 5 – 8 in Chantilly, Virginia, near Washington, in a luxury hotel immersed in nature, the Westfield’s Marriott.
What is Bilderberg? The Bilderberg group, which convened for the first time in 1954 in Holland, is considered the most powerful decision-making organization in the world. Semi-secret (without even a website), the group consists of elite political, financial, managerial, military, and media leaders from North America and Western Europe. In contrast with the Trilateral Commission, which was created out of the Bilderberg Group specifically to work with emerging Asian nations (Japan in the Seventies, China and India today), the Bilderberg Group is a genuine “shadow government” of the West that, some critics say, decides the fate of the world to suit the interests of the restricted oligarchy it represents.
On the Table. Two years ago, a press release sent out on the date of the opening session in 2006 (held in Ottawa, Canada), explained that the annual meeting would discuss the War on Terrorism, the situation in Iran and the Middle East, Oil, Russia, US-EU relations, and relations between the West and Asia, as well as Immigration. It is to be supposed that this year’s meeting will include discussion of current international emergencies, such as Afghanistan, the high cost of oil, and the world economic crisis. Concerning oil: after the Ottawa meeting, indiscreet leaks reported that a decision had been announced by oil producers to raise the cost of oil to over $100 a barrel over the course of two years.
The most recent list of Bilderberg members dates from the 2006 meeting, and includes high Bush administration officials, Henry Kissinger, the directors of the Federal Reserve Bank, Credit Suisse, Rothschild Europe (Vice President Franco Bernabè), representatives of Shell, BP, and ENI (Paolo Scaroni), Coca Cola, Phillips, Unilever, Time Warner, AOL, Tyssen-Krupp, and Fiat (Vice President John Elkann). Also present were representatives from Nato, the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Union, and economists (including Giulio Tremonti and Mario Monti) and many Western leaders (Italy’s representative was Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa). See below other Italian participants at past Bilderberg meetings.
Why all the privacy? Considering the grave importance to the public of the subjects discussed and the people present at the meetings, it would be logical – if for no other reason that to discourage paranoid theories – not to keep the meetings so private (or secret, if you prefer), and not to hold them behind closed doors in super-secure locations surrounded by armed guards, far from the prying eyes of journalists and the curious. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding?
Watching Rick Perry’s announcement from South Carolina that he was officially throwing his ten gallon hat in the ring, just as the Ames Iowa Straw Poll was underway, I really wanted to like him!! He looked and sounded presidential, shades of Ronald Reagan at first glance. The fact that Texas has produced half of all the jobs created in the past 10-years and 40% since Obama has been in office is also an enticing thought. And for those of us who are Christians, his prayer event where 44,000+ people gathered to pray for the Texas, rain for the state and for the healing of America was positive icing on the cake.
Perry’s team simultaneously released his first campaign commercial. And by entering the race, Rick Perry has just shaken up the contest for the Republican nomination for President and that is a good thing overall. During week one people have generally gone crazy for Perry!
But as soon as you look a bit closer at Rick Perry, you realize that there really is no middle ground. People either love him or hate him. And many of his fellow Texans are pretty luke warm, if not down right negative, about supporting him in his bid for the presidency; a fact that is a definitely disconcerting.
Many people in the tea party movement see Perry as a mixed bag. And if he ends up being the GOP nominee, he defeats Obama on one single issue: Jobs, and now even that story isn’t quite what it appeared.
America has been losing jobs, while Texas has been creating them. Jobs will be the central issue of this upcoming election. To update the great quote from Ronald Reagan, “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. A recovery is when Obama loses his job!” And making Obama a one-term president must remain the goal, no matter who the nominee ends up being.
Rick Perry is running as a conservative and certainly is more conservative than Mitt Romney, or at least that is what we are being told. And many people believe Perry could be the one candidate who can unite the Tea Party and the establishment GOP, as well as attract the independents. He is certainly not as conservative as Michele Bachmann, and many argue that he is more electable than Michele. However, on that same note, he is perhaps more conservative than Sarah Palin in some areas, who has a Libertarian streak, and he is less desirable than she in most other areas. (If you take an honest look at Palin’s record and beliefs and stop listening to the mainstream media, if she runs… Palin would be the candidate who is most like Ronald Reagan! And disappointingly to her detractors, the emails recently released by Alaska covering Palin’s governorship, show that Sarah is a smart and honest politician.)
How much Tea Party support does Perry have? That would depend on the tea party group and perhaps where they are geographically located, at least to a point. The Moore (South Carolina) Tea Party had a straw poll at their recent event where Michele Bachmann finished a weak second to Rick Perry. Rick Perry got 40% more votes than Michele Bachmann, but it is in an area that has been infatuated with the idea of a Perry run for years. And again, I would say that Palin in that same poll would have walked away with it even there, and let us not forget that fellow Texan Ron Paul, who was second in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, is also a tea party candidate. Some even call him the father of the tea party. I’d say the Tea Party will only support him sporadically.
Perry is a good campaigner, a good speaker, has a very good organization, and is now a money-raising machine. And if Perry can pull well in at least some Tea Party groups he could draw enough votes to beat alleged front-runner Mitt Romney. He has already pulled into the front-runner spot, but many feel that he may just as quickly burn out as people get to know more about him.
And as much as we’d like to think that looks and presentation don’t matter in who we vote for, it definitely does to some people. And many think Perry is good-looking and presents himself well. However others have said that the way he puts himself together is odd; “the boots and tuxedo thing may be fine in Texas but outside of the lone star state it doesn’t travel very well.” And others think he comes across as an insincere televangelist. Some have also criticized Perry for mangling the history of Texas.
There are a lot of questions that need to be asked of Perry, a lot of concerns, including his stance on illegal immigration. Hopefully we learned our lesson with Barack Obama and we vet our candidates… all of them, plus we stop letting the media tell us who is good, bad or questionable… and the one to vote for. Look where that got us last time.
One thing is certain, given his strength as an unannounced candidate, there is that possibility that we may have just seen the future Republican nominee enter the race.
Many, including in an article in the WSJ, are still looking at the GOP field and saying, “If there is anybody out there still thinking about getting into this race… now would be the time!” Sarah Palin, Chris Christy, Paul Ryan, Rudy Giuliani, Thaddeus McCotter, John Bolton and even a re-emergence of Donald Trump are all on that list. And there are beginning to be those in the Democratic party saying the same thing about their party. Let us just pray the Trump does not try to jump in as a third party candidate; a disaster in the making for the GOP and America!
And before we get to the slug fest below… I will point out a few Perry positives:
Perry packs a concealed laser-guided pistol and has used it.
He is a fifth generation Texan, the son of hardscrabble west Texas tenant farmers. Democrats but conservatives through and through. He grew up in a farm town too small to be on the state map. Life was so hard that he was six years old before his house had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear he wore to college.
He is an Eagle Scout.
After Paint Creek High School, he attended Texas A&M, graduated, and was commissioned into the Air Force where he became a C-130 pilot where he served proudly for the U.S.
Now 61 years old, he has won nine elections to four different offices in Texas state government. In the first three elections he ran as a Democrat then switched to the Republican Party. He is currently the 47th governor of Texas, a position he has held for 11 years, the longest tenure of any governor in the nation. He has never lost an election. Rick Perry was the Lieutenant Governor to whom Governor George Bush handed over the office after winning the 2000 Presidential election.
He says it as he sees it, which so far is what I like about him most.
And you can say none of the above about Obama!
The only question, looking at his history is how can we depend on Perry really doing what he says?!?
14 18 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
Supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry are not going to like this part of the article at all. Right now, Republicans all over the United States are touting Rick Perry as the "Republican messiah" (where have we heard that before?), that is going to come charging in to save America from the presidency of Barack Obama.
Many believed that if Rick Perry entered the race, he would instantly become the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and gosh darn if he hasn’t. Perry certainly looks the part and he knows how to give a good speech, but when ordinary Americans all over the country take a hard look at his record, they may not like what they see. The truth is that Rick Perry is a big-time globalist, he has raised taxes and fees in Texas numerous times, he has massively increased the size of government spending and government debt in Texas, he has been trying to ram the Trans-Texas Corridor down the throats of the Texas people and he tried to force young women all over Texas to be injected with the Gardasil vaccine. He also has strong ties to the some Muslim community elites, has a history of being a womanizer and skirt chaser (reports that his team always clean up)… which is pretty hypocritical if you are touting yourself as a good Christian and I just saw an article questioning whether Perry is sexist. No, Rick Perry is not going to save America. In fact, he would likely be very, very similar to both Bush and Obama in a lot of ways and that is something we cannot afford!
Right now, Rick Perry is trying to portray himself as a "good conservative" so he will be accepted by Christian conservatives and take votes from people like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin, if she jumps in. And he would be an option to Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, something I really cannot believe we are worried about after we have had a Muslim in the White House, who won’t even own up to it.!
If Rick Perry did win the Republican nomination, he would have a great chance of winning the general election because he would very much be an "establishment" candidate. But is that really what America needs or wants?
So before Republicans get too excited about Rick Perry, there are a whole lot of things that they should know about him and check out for themselves!!.
The following are 18 reasons why Rick Perry would be a really, really bad president....
#1 Rick Perry is a "big government" politician. When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government. He also has a mixed record on regulatory robbery!
#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control. According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932. If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.
#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor. So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry?
#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.
#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a "track record" of not raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.
#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does.
#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent. In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period.
#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states.
#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.
#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.
#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with a highly controversial vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light. Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do. According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when "apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck's hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work."
#15 Rick Perry is very good friends with the Agha Kahn and has an unusually cozy relationship with the Muslim community so could end up being a pro-Sharia candidate as well. He has made some It is certainly something worth investigating.
#18 Changing the U.S. Constitution… Perry style cause he is Fed Up! Some of these are good ideas and others are not!! But changing our founding document is a long process and must be done with care, reason and consensus! He and Obama may have more in common in this area than we’d like! Obama and his bunch want to write a whole second bill of rights and they just skirt around the Constitution if it doesn’t suit them.
Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments. The Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.
Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up!Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."
"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7.Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
Rick Perry has a record that should make all Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents cringe.
He is not the "conservative Republican" that he is trying to claim that he is. He is simply another in a long line of "RINOs" (Republicans in name only).
If Rick Perry becomes president, he will probably be very similar to George W. Bush. He will explode the size of the U.S. government and U.S. government debt, he will find sneaky ways to raise taxes, he will do nothing about the Federal Reserve or corruption in our financial system and he will push the agenda of the globalists and the United Nations at every turn, to our detriment.
Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare… if not the end of America as we know her. And almost everyone, except the leftist ideologues and the completely uninformed now agree that we need to elect anyone other than Barack Obama for a second term.
But from the sounds of it four years of Rick Perry, could be almost as bad.
America deserves better than the "lesser of two evils".
Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.
Hopefully things will be different in 2012.
Unlike Perry, Obama is all hat and no cattle. There is no Obama thrust that Perry can't parry if he keeps his good humor and enthusiasm and reminds Americans that, yes, his flaws are large until you compare them with Obama's. So in the end, if he is the GOP choice he will get my support because one more term of Obama will destroy this country… but I have grave concerns about Perry!
h/t to The American Dream Jean Stoner, and Deonia Copeland, George King, Michael Carpenter and Anglo & Warbird from Sovereignty in Colorado. Sorry if I missed anyone. The negative information on Perry is just flying in as quickly or quicker than the positive!!
Freedumbnation:
