by Paul E. Marek
Wednesday January 2, 2008 (Original)
from (forwarder) Dr Emanual Tanay
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War ll owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.'Very few people were true Nazis 'he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.
'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.The average Japanese individual prior to World War ll was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilian s; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems of expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on.
Emanuel Tanay,
M.D.Ann Arbor, MI
Never forget this fact; "The NWO (New World Order) is the ultimate goal of those satanists who conspire to control the world and ALL else is a smoke screen, a stepping stone or a diversionary tactic! " Woody Wood
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free--absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.
The Internet Must Remain Free
By Chuck Baldwin
June 29, 2010
The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, "A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack."
The report continues by saying, "The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure."
See the report at: http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web1
A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: "President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet 'kill switch' bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor.
"The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.
"Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor."
The report continued by saying, "Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic [communist] China's policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.
"'Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,' Lieberman told CNN's Candy Crowley.
"While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet."
See the report at:http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web2
Of course, pro-family groups have long lobbied Washington lawmakers to pass regulations restricting objectionable material on the Internet. But Senator Lieberman's bill does more than restrict content on the Internet; it gives the federal government the power to completely shut it down.
My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free--absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.
I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman's bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of "objectionable content" includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman's bill does.
The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either.
And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is essential that the free flow of information be allowed to continue over the Internet. The major news media is a finely filtered, tightly controlled medium that works harder at blocking news and information than it does at delivering it. Virtually every major television and radio network, along with the nation's major newspapers, is an equal opportunity news-suppressor.
Just ask yourself, what would you have known regarding the MIAC report in Missouri had it not been for the Internet? What would you have known about the fiasco in Hardin, Montana, had it not been for the Internet? What would you know about the NAFTA superhighway without the Internet? If not for the Internet, would you ever have learned about the CFR's plans for a North American Community? Where would the Tea Parties be today without the Internet? Where would Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 have been without the Internet? Virtually everything you've learned regarding the State sovereignty momentum that continues to build across this country you've learned from the Internet. Except for a few courageous independent radio talk show hosts, and newspaper and magazine publishers, the vast majority of extremely relevant and critical information relative to freedom is gleaned from the Internet--not to mention the speed with which news and information is able to travel, thanks to the Internet.
It is no hyperbole to suggest that the Internet is the modern patriots'
version of the colonists' Committees of Correspondence that sounded the clarion call for liberty and independence at the time of America's founding.
And now, power-mad elitists in Washington, D.C., are attempting to provide the federal government with the power and authority to shut it down at will.
What is even more disturbing is the way that private companies and special interest groups are willing to prostitute themselves before the federal government in order to get their own "piece of the pie." Think of it: just about every freedom-grabbing, Big-Government action taken by these modern Machiavellians in Washington, D.C., is facilitated by willing CEOs from Big Business. They gladly assist Big Brother when he wants to spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, etc. They happily help Big Brother when he wants to eavesdrop inside our homes, examine our financial records, or snoop on our private lives. When Big Brother says, "Jump!" they ask, "How high?" Then--like these hypocrites in Washington, D.C.--they have the audacity to wave the flag on Independence Day and shout, "America: the land of the free!" As if they are blameless in freedom's demise.
Mark it down: if the federal government ever shuts down the Internet, it will be business as usual for Washington, D.C., and its fellow travelers in Big Business; but We the People will be out of business, and so will freedom. Regardless of what side of any issue you and I may come from, it is critical that the Internet remains absolutely and totally free.
P.S. We are still shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS but our supply will not last long. To order, go here: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=279
This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1822
By Chuck Baldwin
June 29, 2010
The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, "A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack."
The report continues by saying, "The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure."
See the report at: http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web1
A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: "President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet 'kill switch' bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor.
"The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.
"Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor."
The report continued by saying, "Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic [communist] China's policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.
"'Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,' Lieberman told CNN's Candy Crowley.
"While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet."
See the report at:http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web2
Of course, pro-family groups have long lobbied Washington lawmakers to pass regulations restricting objectionable material on the Internet. But Senator Lieberman's bill does more than restrict content on the Internet; it gives the federal government the power to completely shut it down.
My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free--absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.
I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman's bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of "objectionable content" includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman's bill does.
The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either.
And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is essential that the free flow of information be allowed to continue over the Internet. The major news media is a finely filtered, tightly controlled medium that works harder at blocking news and information than it does at delivering it. Virtually every major television and radio network, along with the nation's major newspapers, is an equal opportunity news-suppressor.
Just ask yourself, what would you have known regarding the MIAC report in Missouri had it not been for the Internet? What would you have known about the fiasco in Hardin, Montana, had it not been for the Internet? What would you know about the NAFTA superhighway without the Internet? If not for the Internet, would you ever have learned about the CFR's plans for a North American Community? Where would the Tea Parties be today without the Internet? Where would Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 have been without the Internet? Virtually everything you've learned regarding the State sovereignty momentum that continues to build across this country you've learned from the Internet. Except for a few courageous independent radio talk show hosts, and newspaper and magazine publishers, the vast majority of extremely relevant and critical information relative to freedom is gleaned from the Internet--not to mention the speed with which news and information is able to travel, thanks to the Internet.
It is no hyperbole to suggest that the Internet is the modern patriots'
version of the colonists' Committees of Correspondence that sounded the clarion call for liberty and independence at the time of America's founding.
And now, power-mad elitists in Washington, D.C., are attempting to provide the federal government with the power and authority to shut it down at will.
What is even more disturbing is the way that private companies and special interest groups are willing to prostitute themselves before the federal government in order to get their own "piece of the pie." Think of it: just about every freedom-grabbing, Big-Government action taken by these modern Machiavellians in Washington, D.C., is facilitated by willing CEOs from Big Business. They gladly assist Big Brother when he wants to spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, etc. They happily help Big Brother when he wants to eavesdrop inside our homes, examine our financial records, or snoop on our private lives. When Big Brother says, "Jump!" they ask, "How high?" Then--like these hypocrites in Washington, D.C.--they have the audacity to wave the flag on Independence Day and shout, "America: the land of the free!" As if they are blameless in freedom's demise.
Mark it down: if the federal government ever shuts down the Internet, it will be business as usual for Washington, D.C., and its fellow travelers in Big Business; but We the People will be out of business, and so will freedom. Regardless of what side of any issue you and I may come from, it is critical that the Internet remains absolutely and totally free.
P.S. We are still shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS but our supply will not last long. To order, go here: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=279
This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1822
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Nationwide Screenings To Take Place for New Film "Don't Tread on Me!"
For Immediate Release
Media Contact: Debbie Morgan 573-378-9123 debbie@bridgestonemediagroup.com
After the rapid erosion of civil liberties since September 11th, what protections do U.S. citizens still have? The new film 'Don't Tread on Me' reminds Americans about key Constitutional Amendments and why they are so important today.
Columbia, MO June 15, 2010 - The amount of power the government has awarded itself in launching a global war on terror along with the increase in surveillance here at home isn't covered much on the nightly news, but it should be.
What does the Constitution say about your rights as a citizen? What is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege?" What is the proper role of the government? These are just some of the questions asked (and answered) in the film "Don't Tread On Me" - the new release by William Lewis and Gary Franchi ("Camp FEMA").
"Don't Tread on Me" takes a critical look at the rapid erosion of civil liberties at a time when our most basic freedoms are very much in peril. Set for a June 2010 release on DVD, this highly anticipated film features interviews with top Constitutional authorities, as well as local political activists and active politicians.
Viewers will get insights from such notables as; author and constitutional expert Dr. Edwin Vieira, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, former Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarick, Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key, Missouri State Representatives Cynthia Davis and Brian Nieves and State Senators Jim Lembke and Gary Nodler. Also featured in the film is popular radio talk show host Alex Jones.
Director William Lewis calls his latest project, "a blueprint for insuring that people like you, me and the grassroots efforts effectively target what's wrong with the politics in this country and have the knowledge to do something about it."
While "Don't Tread On Me" gives the viewer a clear understanding of just how difficult the road ahead will be, both Lewis and Franchi are hopeful that when people get to understand what their rights are and everyone gets involved, a positive change can be made.
That's why they're asking activists and constitutional advocates from across the country to hold screenings in their home, public library, or local cinema on Saturday, June 26th when they kick off simultaneous screenings nationwide of "Don't Tread on Me."
Along with the screenings, the filmmakers are also offering those who purchase the DVD from the official website the ability to make copies to distribute the film in a viral hand-to-hand campaign.
Currently 115 public screenings are scheduled, from coast to coast, on or around June 26th. In Mobile Alabama on June 26th at the Mobile Christian School, 5900 Cottage Hill Rd. with showings at 2:00PM and 7:00PM. NO ADMISSION FEE! AIR CONDITIONED AUDITORIUM! Copies of the DVD will be available on a limited, first come- first served, basis.
For more information, please visit http://DontTreadOnMeMovie.com
http://RestoreTheRepublic.com
3149 Dundee Rd #176
Northbrook, Illinois 60062, USA
Media Contact: Debbie Morgan 573-378-9123 debbie@bridgestonemediagroup.com
After the rapid erosion of civil liberties since September 11th, what protections do U.S. citizens still have? The new film 'Don't Tread on Me' reminds Americans about key Constitutional Amendments and why they are so important today.
Columbia, MO June 15, 2010 - The amount of power the government has awarded itself in launching a global war on terror along with the increase in surveillance here at home isn't covered much on the nightly news, but it should be.
What does the Constitution say about your rights as a citizen? What is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege?" What is the proper role of the government? These are just some of the questions asked (and answered) in the film "Don't Tread On Me" - the new release by William Lewis and Gary Franchi ("Camp FEMA").
"Don't Tread on Me" takes a critical look at the rapid erosion of civil liberties at a time when our most basic freedoms are very much in peril. Set for a June 2010 release on DVD, this highly anticipated film features interviews with top Constitutional authorities, as well as local political activists and active politicians.
Viewers will get insights from such notables as; author and constitutional expert Dr. Edwin Vieira, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, former Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarick, Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key, Missouri State Representatives Cynthia Davis and Brian Nieves and State Senators Jim Lembke and Gary Nodler. Also featured in the film is popular radio talk show host Alex Jones.
Director William Lewis calls his latest project, "a blueprint for insuring that people like you, me and the grassroots efforts effectively target what's wrong with the politics in this country and have the knowledge to do something about it."
While "Don't Tread On Me" gives the viewer a clear understanding of just how difficult the road ahead will be, both Lewis and Franchi are hopeful that when people get to understand what their rights are and everyone gets involved, a positive change can be made.
That's why they're asking activists and constitutional advocates from across the country to hold screenings in their home, public library, or local cinema on Saturday, June 26th when they kick off simultaneous screenings nationwide of "Don't Tread on Me."
Along with the screenings, the filmmakers are also offering those who purchase the DVD from the official website the ability to make copies to distribute the film in a viral hand-to-hand campaign.
Currently 115 public screenings are scheduled, from coast to coast, on or around June 26th. In Mobile Alabama on June 26th at the Mobile Christian School, 5900 Cottage Hill Rd. with showings at 2:00PM and 7:00PM. NO ADMISSION FEE! AIR CONDITIONED AUDITORIUM! Copies of the DVD will be available on a limited, first come- first served, basis.
For more information, please visit http://DontTreadOnMeMovie.com
http://RestoreTheRepublic.com
3149 Dundee Rd #176
Northbrook, Illinois 60062, USA
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Oppose the New Federal Power Grab Over Water!
Once again, we are presented with yet another version of a bill pertaining to clean water that goes far beyond protecting our waterways; it would end local control of much acreage that is privately held.
Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says the aim of his newly introduced legislation, H.R. 5088: America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act, is simply to restore the Clean Water Act of 1972 to its original intent. Unfortunately, his new bill extends regulations far beyond the original bill.
Oberstar’s H.R. 5088 would explicitly replace every occurrence of “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States” in the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” of 1972. In addition, this bill would define “waters of the United States” in an amazingly expansive way to explicitly provide federal jurisdiction over “streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds.”
This would grant the federal government and its various regulatory bureaucracies control over millions and millions of acres of privately owned land, from farms and ranches to small land owners who happen to have ponds, depressions, prairie holes, and low-lying areas where water collects.
Well beyond the scope of water, the measure would also extend federal authority over prior converted cropland, says the American Farm Bureau Federation. This proposal hidden in the bill would give the federal regulators control over an additional 53 million acres of land.
H.R. 5088 is currently sitting in the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment which contains 21 Democratic and 15 Republican members. Pressure should be brought to bear on these 36 people so that the bill doesn’t make it out onto the House floor for a vote. However, it would be wise to contact your congressmen to let them know of your opposition to expanded federal authority over those drops of water that happen to occupy the same square inch.
Thank you,
Woody Wood and
Your friends at The John Birch Society
Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says the aim of his newly introduced legislation, H.R. 5088: America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act, is simply to restore the Clean Water Act of 1972 to its original intent. Unfortunately, his new bill extends regulations far beyond the original bill.
Oberstar’s H.R. 5088 would explicitly replace every occurrence of “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States” in the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” of 1972. In addition, this bill would define “waters of the United States” in an amazingly expansive way to explicitly provide federal jurisdiction over “streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds.”
This would grant the federal government and its various regulatory bureaucracies control over millions and millions of acres of privately owned land, from farms and ranches to small land owners who happen to have ponds, depressions, prairie holes, and low-lying areas where water collects.
Well beyond the scope of water, the measure would also extend federal authority over prior converted cropland, says the American Farm Bureau Federation. This proposal hidden in the bill would give the federal regulators control over an additional 53 million acres of land.
H.R. 5088 is currently sitting in the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment which contains 21 Democratic and 15 Republican members. Pressure should be brought to bear on these 36 people so that the bill doesn’t make it out onto the House floor for a vote. However, it would be wise to contact your congressmen to let them know of your opposition to expanded federal authority over those drops of water that happen to occupy the same square inch.
Thank you,
Woody Wood and
Your friends at The John Birch Society
Sunday, May 2, 2010
THE MILITARY AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
By Michael LeMieux
May 1, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Anyone who has been watching the news or paying attention to the world around them has heard of conspiracy theory of the “New World Order.” According to this theory, over the decades, a relatively small group of elite people have been manipulating events to create a global governance to usher in total control of the entire planet.
To some the evidence of this conspiracy is overwhelming and cannot be mere coincidence. Others cannot fathom that such a thing could actually happen without everyone knowing about it. I think it may be a little of both. If you Google “New World Order,” you will return a list of over 276 million hits. By anyone’s standard this is quite impressive. In contrast, if you do a similar search for “George Washington,” one of our nations most honored and renowned leaders, you would only come up with 74 million hits.
Obviously this is not definitive proof, but it shows that there has been a great deal of time and effort involved to both prove or disprove the theory. As with most conspiracy theories, behind each of them lay a grain of truth upon which the theory is based. The conclusion, however, may be something totally different or it could be spot on. This, however, is the nature of conspiracy theories. They are as hard to prove as they are to disprove.
Another aspect of a great conspiracy theory is the deniability factor. If the government denies it is happening, then the supporters of the theory say they are lying to cover up what they are doing. If the government is silent, then the theorists say they consent by their silence (because if they were innocent, they would attempt to clear their name.) Occasionally the target of the conspiracy theory may use the attention to their advantage, to deflect attention away from something they may not want others to know. So you see conspiracy theories can be used by both sides.
What happens when a theory gains more and more evidence of its existence and national leaders openly admit to the theory? For example:
President George W. Bush (March 6, 1991): “Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.”
Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR member, college mentor of President Clinton, author of "Tragedy and Hope," stated: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to five presidents. What was not widely known is that he was also a CFR member and founding member of the Trilateral Commission. He stated: "In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position." He also stated that: "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." (Emphasis added.)
Part of this plan to implement a New World Order has already been completed in Europe with the European Union. At first it was designed only as a “free trade” agreement to make Europe more competitive with the larger markets of the United States and China. Since its original formation they have grown to include a political system to govern monetary affairs. They adopted a new currency, a court system, imposed taxes, created a police force, and also a military. It seems like they have all the makings of a United European States government.
Transpose that scenario across the seas to the United States – for the past few decades the federal government has been pushing more and more free trade agreements around the world. Under President GHW Bush we implemented the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the United States, Canada, and Mexico as partners. Under this agreement many goals were established to build cooperation in key areas of security and business to include a single border that encompassed all three countries. Part of this shared border would include integration of police and military command and control, training, interoperability of equipment, and standards.
Another aspect of the SPP was to have more open borders where citizens of each of the member countries would more easily be able to travel and that the flow of goods and services would be expedited. Travel corridors would be created to ensure a smooth flow between the three countries.
The CFR produced a report entitled, “Building the North American Community” recommending the following:
1. That the three nations should cooperate and share responsibility in areas of law enforcement, energy security, regulatory policy, dispute resolution, and continental defense vice national defense.
2. That the countries should rely more on business and less on bureaucracy.
3. To build an area where there is free movement of trade, capital and people. (Apparently border security is out the window.)
4. Security boundaries should be around the continent not around individual nations.
5. They recommend creating a North America security pass. Not only will we have a national ID, we will have a continental ID, which has smart chip technology so we can be tracked wherever we go.
6. By 2010 they wanted to have established a free flow of people across the interior borders of all three countries.
7. They recommend development of a tri-national threat intelligence center and joint training for law enforcement officials.
8. They recommend the development of tri-national ballistics and explosives registration. (Second Amendment, we don’t need any Second Amendment.)
9. Military defense structures are to be comprised of all three countries’ militaries.
10. Combine the intelligence-sharing capabilities at both the military and law enforcement levels.
11. They also want to spread the benefits of economic development. (This sounds a little like socialism -- entitlement rights for the poor to narrow the income gap between the three countries. Why don’t they have to work for a living like everyone else?)
12. Pour more money, resources, businesses, infrastructure, judicial reform, and governmental oversight into Mexico to allow them to grow faster than the U.S. or Canada so they can catch up to us economically.
13. They want to create investment funds in Canada and the U.S. to funnel more capital into Mexico.
14. Combine national resources for all three countries to share.
15. They want to create common tariffs for all three nations and allow all ports to be used for all of the nations. (This will require modification of national tax structures, port authorities, Labor Union practices, and security.)
16. Establish a permanent tribunal for dispute resolution. (This is the first step in creating a judicial system. This tribunal will supersede national law and constitutions.)
17. Open skies and open roads. No more borders and check points, we should all trust each other. We’re a partnership now.
18. Increase labor mobility. (Sounds like open borders to me.)
19. They also want us to implement a Social Security Totalization Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. (What? We can’t make SS work for our own citizens, and they want to add more? It keeps sounding more like socialism.)
20. Next, a full North American education system. (Maybe this will fix our broken education system, NOT.)
21. Create organizations and governmental departments to facilitate a vision-to-action framework. (This, my friends, has already started.)
I did not go into every detail of what the CFR wants in the way of creating this integration, community, union, or whatever you want to call it; but I think you get the picture. Now looking over the list and comparing it to the European structure and SPP goals laid out above, do you notice the striking similarities between the two?
President Obama stated his intent to move forward with advancing the SPP agenda under a less controversial title of “North America Leader Summit.” Navy Vice Admiral James Winnefeld Jr. stated, during his April confirmation hearings to a Senate committee, that if confirmed to head U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, he will work to build and maintain the command’s relationships between the militaries of Canada and Mexico.
We have already integrated the Northern Command with the Canadian Command to aid in missions in support of the civil authorities. This means that the President could call upon foreign troops to operate within the borders of our own nation and for/or against the American people.
To further entrench the New World Order conspiracy – a February 2009 U.S. Army War College paper authored by Scott G. Wuestner, entitled “Building Partner Capacity/Security Force Assistance: A New Structural Paradigm,” stated:
“This paper analyzes this construct and provides a framework for identifying proponency, institutionalizing lessons learned from Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, as well as providing military, police and governance structure as a tool for global engagement. This new structural paradigm will help the United States gain access, influence, and build capacity throughout this new world order.”
President Obama in his Berlin wall speech called for a World Order “where the burdens of global citizenship…” would be shared. Yet in this very same speech he condemns the workers of America for causing global warming, which we now know is based on lies and false data.
We have changed Presidents and political parties many times over the past forty plus years, but when you look at what they have said and what they are doing, you have to wonder if the conspiracy theorists are right. How could so many different leaders, with different backgrounds, different political platforms, different beliefs, all promote the same programs that are leading us toward a “New World Order?”
Do you really think this is all a coincidence?
© 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
May 1, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Anyone who has been watching the news or paying attention to the world around them has heard of conspiracy theory of the “New World Order.” According to this theory, over the decades, a relatively small group of elite people have been manipulating events to create a global governance to usher in total control of the entire planet.
To some the evidence of this conspiracy is overwhelming and cannot be mere coincidence. Others cannot fathom that such a thing could actually happen without everyone knowing about it. I think it may be a little of both. If you Google “New World Order,” you will return a list of over 276 million hits. By anyone’s standard this is quite impressive. In contrast, if you do a similar search for “George Washington,” one of our nations most honored and renowned leaders, you would only come up with 74 million hits.
Obviously this is not definitive proof, but it shows that there has been a great deal of time and effort involved to both prove or disprove the theory. As with most conspiracy theories, behind each of them lay a grain of truth upon which the theory is based. The conclusion, however, may be something totally different or it could be spot on. This, however, is the nature of conspiracy theories. They are as hard to prove as they are to disprove.
Another aspect of a great conspiracy theory is the deniability factor. If the government denies it is happening, then the supporters of the theory say they are lying to cover up what they are doing. If the government is silent, then the theorists say they consent by their silence (because if they were innocent, they would attempt to clear their name.) Occasionally the target of the conspiracy theory may use the attention to their advantage, to deflect attention away from something they may not want others to know. So you see conspiracy theories can be used by both sides.
What happens when a theory gains more and more evidence of its existence and national leaders openly admit to the theory? For example:
President George W. Bush (March 6, 1991): “Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.”
Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR member, college mentor of President Clinton, author of "Tragedy and Hope," stated: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to five presidents. What was not widely known is that he was also a CFR member and founding member of the Trilateral Commission. He stated: "In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position." He also stated that: "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." (Emphasis added.)
Part of this plan to implement a New World Order has already been completed in Europe with the European Union. At first it was designed only as a “free trade” agreement to make Europe more competitive with the larger markets of the United States and China. Since its original formation they have grown to include a political system to govern monetary affairs. They adopted a new currency, a court system, imposed taxes, created a police force, and also a military. It seems like they have all the makings of a United European States government.
Transpose that scenario across the seas to the United States – for the past few decades the federal government has been pushing more and more free trade agreements around the world. Under President GHW Bush we implemented the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the United States, Canada, and Mexico as partners. Under this agreement many goals were established to build cooperation in key areas of security and business to include a single border that encompassed all three countries. Part of this shared border would include integration of police and military command and control, training, interoperability of equipment, and standards.
Another aspect of the SPP was to have more open borders where citizens of each of the member countries would more easily be able to travel and that the flow of goods and services would be expedited. Travel corridors would be created to ensure a smooth flow between the three countries.
The CFR produced a report entitled, “Building the North American Community” recommending the following:
1. That the three nations should cooperate and share responsibility in areas of law enforcement, energy security, regulatory policy, dispute resolution, and continental defense vice national defense.
2. That the countries should rely more on business and less on bureaucracy.
3. To build an area where there is free movement of trade, capital and people. (Apparently border security is out the window.)
4. Security boundaries should be around the continent not around individual nations.
5. They recommend creating a North America security pass. Not only will we have a national ID, we will have a continental ID, which has smart chip technology so we can be tracked wherever we go.
6. By 2010 they wanted to have established a free flow of people across the interior borders of all three countries.
7. They recommend development of a tri-national threat intelligence center and joint training for law enforcement officials.
8. They recommend the development of tri-national ballistics and explosives registration. (Second Amendment, we don’t need any Second Amendment.)
9. Military defense structures are to be comprised of all three countries’ militaries.
10. Combine the intelligence-sharing capabilities at both the military and law enforcement levels.
11. They also want to spread the benefits of economic development. (This sounds a little like socialism -- entitlement rights for the poor to narrow the income gap between the three countries. Why don’t they have to work for a living like everyone else?)
12. Pour more money, resources, businesses, infrastructure, judicial reform, and governmental oversight into Mexico to allow them to grow faster than the U.S. or Canada so they can catch up to us economically.
13. They want to create investment funds in Canada and the U.S. to funnel more capital into Mexico.
14. Combine national resources for all three countries to share.
15. They want to create common tariffs for all three nations and allow all ports to be used for all of the nations. (This will require modification of national tax structures, port authorities, Labor Union practices, and security.)
16. Establish a permanent tribunal for dispute resolution. (This is the first step in creating a judicial system. This tribunal will supersede national law and constitutions.)
17. Open skies and open roads. No more borders and check points, we should all trust each other. We’re a partnership now.
18. Increase labor mobility. (Sounds like open borders to me.)
19. They also want us to implement a Social Security Totalization Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. (What? We can’t make SS work for our own citizens, and they want to add more? It keeps sounding more like socialism.)
20. Next, a full North American education system. (Maybe this will fix our broken education system, NOT.)
21. Create organizations and governmental departments to facilitate a vision-to-action framework. (This, my friends, has already started.)
I did not go into every detail of what the CFR wants in the way of creating this integration, community, union, or whatever you want to call it; but I think you get the picture. Now looking over the list and comparing it to the European structure and SPP goals laid out above, do you notice the striking similarities between the two?
President Obama stated his intent to move forward with advancing the SPP agenda under a less controversial title of “North America Leader Summit.” Navy Vice Admiral James Winnefeld Jr. stated, during his April confirmation hearings to a Senate committee, that if confirmed to head U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, he will work to build and maintain the command’s relationships between the militaries of Canada and Mexico.
We have already integrated the Northern Command with the Canadian Command to aid in missions in support of the civil authorities. This means that the President could call upon foreign troops to operate within the borders of our own nation and for/or against the American people.
To further entrench the New World Order conspiracy – a February 2009 U.S. Army War College paper authored by Scott G. Wuestner, entitled “Building Partner Capacity/Security Force Assistance: A New Structural Paradigm,” stated:
“This paper analyzes this construct and provides a framework for identifying proponency, institutionalizing lessons learned from Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, as well as providing military, police and governance structure as a tool for global engagement. This new structural paradigm will help the United States gain access, influence, and build capacity throughout this new world order.”
President Obama in his Berlin wall speech called for a World Order “where the burdens of global citizenship…” would be shared. Yet in this very same speech he condemns the workers of America for causing global warming, which we now know is based on lies and false data.
We have changed Presidents and political parties many times over the past forty plus years, but when you look at what they have said and what they are doing, you have to wonder if the conspiracy theorists are right. How could so many different leaders, with different backgrounds, different political platforms, different beliefs, all promote the same programs that are leading us toward a “New World Order?”
Do you really think this is all a coincidence?
© 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
