"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Friday, July 2, 2010

Is It Starting To Make Any Sense? Do You Feel Like A Leaf In The Wind?

This is one article on the CFR. I suggest you take the time to research it. While you're at it, research the Trilateral Commission as well. Check this out http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cfr-members.htm. It's a who's who from American political, financial, educational, military, media, union, corporate and judicial circles (and this file isn't even up to date). List of CFR Members

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order
- By William Blase

For those who may be confused by the controversies surrounding the "New World Order", a One-World-Government, and American concern over giving the UN more power; those unaware of the issues involved; and those wishing more background, I offer the following.

Originally presented for an Honors Class, "Dilemmas of War and Peace," at New Mexico State University, the paper was ridiculed and characterized by Dr. Yosef Lapid, (an acknowledged and locally quoted "expert" on Terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs) as "paranoid... possibly a symptom of mental illness." You may judge for yourself.

Citing source data is the "scientific method," but does not seem to apply to "Conspiracy Theories." A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the "skeptics," the "realists." It seems to me the "symptoms of mental illness" are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence ("There are none so blind as those who WILL not see"); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.

To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.

The issue involves much more than a difference of philosophy, or political viewpoint. Growing up in the midst of the "Cold War," our generation were taught that those who attempted to abolish our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional government were committing acts of treason. Please judge for yourself if the group discussed is guilty of such.

If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the "New World Order", as they have for over seventy years.

The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its' "experts" write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900's, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).

That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: "Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded."

Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."

All that is needed to effectively control a government is to have control over the nation's money: a central bank with a monopoly over the supply of money and credit. This had been done in Western Europe, with the creation of privately owned central banks such as the Bank of England.

Georgetown professor Dr. Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor while at Georgetown) wrote about the goals of the investment bankers who control central banks: "... nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole... controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."

The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation. He wrote: "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Does that not describe the situation in America today?

The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., "The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission." Headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a central bank.

Though unconstitutional, as only "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg warned Congress: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth...the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized." The Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability.

Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: "When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists...acting together to enslave the world...Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is--the Fed has usurped the government."

Although called "Federal," the Federal Reserve system is privately owned by member banks, makes its own policies, and is not subject to oversight by Congress or the President. As the overseer and supplier of reserves, the Fed gave banks access to public funds, which enhanced their lending capacity.

Peter Kershaw, in "Economic Solutions" lists the ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank System as: Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros: New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York. (That most, if not all of these families just happen to be Jewish, you may judge the significance of yourself). The balance of stock is owned by major commercial member banks.

According to Devvy Kidd, "Why A Bankrupt America?" The Federal Reserve pays the Bureau of Engraving & Printing approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. 10,000 $100 notes (one million dollars) would thus cost the Federal Reserve $230. They then secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value from the U.S. government. The collateral is our land, labor, and assets... collected by their agents, the IRS. By authorizing the Fed to regulate and create money (and thus inflation), Congress gave private banks power to create profits at will.

As Lindberg put it: "The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation...they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...the day of reckoning is only a few years removed." That day came in 1929, with the Stock Market crash and Great Depression.

One of the most important powers given to the Fed was the right to buy and sell government securities, and provide loans to member banks so they might also purchase them. This provided another built-in mechanism for profit to the banks, if government debt was increased. All that was needed was a method to pay off the debt. This was accomplished through the passage of the income tax in 1913.

A national income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court, so a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress by none other than ...Senator Nelson Aldrich. As presented to the American people it seemed reasonable enough: income tax on only one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase.

Since it was graduated, the tax would "soak the rich", ...but the rich had other plans, already devising a method of protecting wealth. As described by Gary Allen in his 1976 book "The Rockefeller File," "By the time the (16th) Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation...about the same time that Judge Kenesaw Landis was ordering the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly...John D...not only avoided taxes by creating four great tax-exempt foundations; he used them as repositories for his 'divested' interests...made his assets non-taxable so that they might be passed down through generations without...estate and gift taxes...Each year the Rockefellers can dump up to half their incomes into their pet foundations and deduct the "donations" from their income tax."

Exchanging ownership for control of wealth, foundations are also a handy means for promoting interests that benefit the wealthy. Millions of foundation dollars have been "donated" to causes such as promoting the use of drugs, while degrading preventive medicine. Since many drugs are made from coal tar derivatives, both oil companies and drug manufacturing concerns (many Rockefeller owned or controlled) are the main beneficiaries.

With the means to loan enormous sums to the government (the Federal Reserve), a method to repay the debt (income tax), and an escape from taxation for the wealthy, (foundations), all that remained was an excuse to borrow money. By some happy "coincidence," in 1914 World War I began, and after American participation national debt rose from $1 billion to $25 billion.

Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1913, beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had vowed to veto legislation establishing a central bank. To divide the Republican vote and elect the relatively unknown Wilson, J.P. Morgan and Co. poured money into the candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party.

According to an eyewitness, Wilson was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in 1912 by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy banker. He received an "indoctrination course" from those he met, and in return agreed, if elected: to support the projected Federal Reserve and the income tax, and "listen" to advice in case of war in Europe and on the composition of his cabinet.

Wilson's top advisor during his two terms was a man named Colonel Edward M. House. House's biographer, Charles Seymour, called him the "unseen guardian angel" of the Federal Reserve Act, helping to guide it through Congress. Another biographer wrote that House believed: "...the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds...was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten..." House wrote a book entitled "Philip Dru: Administrator," published anonymously in 1912. The hero, Philip Dru, rules America and introduces radical changes, such as a graduated income tax, a central bank, and a "league of nations."

World War I produced both a large national debt, and huge profits for those who had backed Wilson. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, where he exercised dictatorial power over the national economy. He and the Rockefellers were reported to have earned over $200 million during the war. Wilson backer Cleveland Dodge sold munitions to the allies, while J.P. Morgan loaned them hundreds of millions, with the protection of U.S. entry into the war.

While profit was certainly a motive, the war was also useful to justify the notion of world government. William Hoar reveals in "Architects of Conspiracy" that during the 1950s, government investigators examining the records of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a long- time promoter of globalism, found that several years before the outbreak of World War I, the Carnegie trustees were planning to involve the U.S. in a general war, to set the stage for world government.

The main obstacle was that Americans did not want any involvement in European wars. Some kind of incident, such as the explosion of the battleship Main, which provoked the Spanish - American war, would have to be provided as provocation. This occurred when the Lusitania, carrying 128 Americans on board, was sunk by a German submarine, and anti-German sentiment was aroused. When war was declared, U.S. propaganda portrayed all Germans as Huns and fanged serpents, and all Americans opposing the war as traitors.

What was not revealed at the time, however, was that the Lusitania was transporting war munitions to England, making it a legitimate target for the Germans. Even so, they had taken out large ads in the New York papers, asking that Americans not take passage on the ship.

The evidence seems to point to a deliberate plan to have the ship sunk by the Germans. Colin Simpson, author of "The Lusitania," wrote that Winston Churchill, head of the British Admiralty during the war, had ordered a report to predict the political impact if a passenger ship carrying Americans was sunk. German naval codes had been broken by the British, who knew approximately where all U-boats near the British Isles were located.

According to Simpson, Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of British Naval Intelligence, stated: "The Lusitania was deliberately sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting...escorts withdrawn." Thus, even though Wilson had been reelected in 1916 with the slogan "He kept us out of war," America soon found itself fighting a European war. Actually, Colonel House had already negotiated a secret agreement with England, committing the U.S. to the conflict. It seems the American public had little say in the matter.

With the end of the war and the Versailles Treaty, which required severe war reparations from Germany, the way was paved for a leader in Germany such as Hitler. Wilson brought to the Paris Peace Conference his famous "fourteen points," with point fourteen being a proposal for a "general association of nations," which was to be the first step towards the goal of One World Government-the League of Nations.

Wilson's official biographer, Ray Stannard Baker, revealed that the League was not Wilson's idea. "...not a single idea--in the Covenant of the League was original with the President." Colonel House was the author of the Covenant, and Wilson had merely rewritten it to conform to his own phraseology.

The League of Nations was established, but it, and the plan for world government eventually failed because the U.S. Senate would not ratify the Versailles Treaty.

Pat Robertson, in "The New World Order," states that Colonel House, along with other internationalists, realized that America would not join any scheme for world government without a change in public opinion.

After a series of meetings, it was decided that an "Institute of International Affairs", with two branches, in the United States and England, would be formed.

The British branch became known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, with leadership provided by members of the Round Table. Begun in the late 1800's by Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table aimed to federate the English speaking peoples of the world, and bring it under their rule.

The Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated as the American branch in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel House, and "...such potentates of international banking as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff...the same clique which had engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System," according to Gary Allen in the October 1972 issue of "AMERICAN OPINION."

The founding president of the CFR was John W. Davis, J.P. Morgan's personal attorney, while the vice-president was Paul Cravath, also representing the Morgan interests. Professor Carroll Quigley characterized the CFR as "...a front group for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group." Over time Morgan influence was lost to the Rockefellers, who found that one world government fit their philosophy of business well. As John D. Rockefeller, Sr. had said: "Competition is a sin," and global monopoly fit their needs as they grew internationally.

Antony Sutton, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, wrote of this philosophy: "While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to 'go political' and make society go to work for the monopolists-- under the name of the public good and the public interest."

Frederick C. Howe revealed the strategy of using government in a 1906 book, "Confessions of a Monopolist": "These are the rules of big business...Get a monopoly; let society work for you; and remember that the best of all business is politics..."

As corporations went international, national monopolies could no longer protect their interests. What was needed was a one world system of government controlled from behind the scenes. This had been the plan since the time of Colonel House, and to implement it, it was necessary to weaken the U.S. politically and economically.

During the 1920's, America enjoyed a decade of prosperity, fueled by the easy availability of credit. Between 1923 and 1929 the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply by sixty-two percent. When the stock market crashed, many small investors were ruined, but not "insiders." In March of 1929 Paul Warburg issued a tip the Crash was coming, and the largest investors got out of the market, according to Allen and Abraham in "None Dare Call it Conspiracy."

With their fortunes intact, they were able to buy companies for a fraction of their worth. Shares that had sold for a dollar might now cost a nickel, and the buying power, and wealth, of the rich increased enormously.

Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee declared: "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence...The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."

Curtis Dall, son-in-law of FDR and a syndicate manager for Lehman Brothers, an investment firm, was on the N.Y. Stock Exchange floor the day of the crash. In "FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law," he states: "...it was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Market."
The Crash paved the way for the man Wall Street had groomed for the presidency, FDR. Portrayed as a "man of the little people", the reality was that Roosevelt's family had been involved in New York banking since the eighteenth century.

Frederic Delano, FDR's uncle, served on the original Federal Reserve Board. FDR attended Groton and Harvard, and in the 1920's worked on Wall Street, sitting on the board of directors of eleven different corporations.

Dall wrote of his father-in-law: "...Most of his thoughts, his political 'ammunition,'...were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the CFR-One World Money group. Brilliantly... he exploded that prepared 'ammunition' in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people--and thus paid off and retained his internationalist political support."

Taking America off the gold standard in 1934, FDR opened the way to unrestrained money supply expansion, decades of inflation--and credit revenues for banks. Raising gold prices from $20 an ounce to $35, FDR and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (son of a founding CFR member), gave international bankers huge profits.

FDR's most remembered program, the New Deal, could only be financed through heavy borrowing. In effect, those who had caused the Depression loaned America the money to recover from it. Then, through the National Recovery Administration, proposed by Bernard Baruch in 1930, they were put in charge of regulating the economy. FDR appointed Baruch disciple Hugh Johnson to run the NRA, assisted by CFR member Gerard Swope. With broad powers to regulate wages, prices, and working conditions, it was, as Herbert Hoover wrote in his memoirs: "...pure fascism;...merely a remaking of Mussolini's 'corporate state'..." The Supreme Court eventually ruled the NRA unconstitutional.

During the FDR years, the Council on Foreign Relations captured the political life of the U.S. Besides Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, other CFR members included Secretary of State Edward Stettinus, War Secretary Henry Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles.

Since 1934 almost every United States Secretary of State has been a CFR member; and ALL Secretaries of War or Defense, from Henry L. Stimson through Richard Cheney.

The CIA has been under CFR control almost continuously since its creation, starting with Allen Dulles, founding member of the CFR and brother of Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles had been at the Paris Peace Conference, joined the CFR in 1926, and later became its president.

John Foster Dulles had been one of Woodrow Wilson's young proteges at the Paris Peace Conference. A founding member of the CFR...he was an in-law of the Rockefellers, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Board Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In 1940 FDR defeated internationalist Wendell Willkie, who wrote a book entitled "One World," and later became a CFR member. Congressman Usher Burdick protested at the time on the floor of the House that Willkie was being financed by J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers. Polls showed few Republicans favored him, yet the media portrayed him as THE Republican candidate.

Since that time nearly ALL presidential candidates have been CFR members. President Truman, who was not a member, was advised by a group of "wise men," all six of whom were CFR members, according to Gary Allen. In 1952 and 1956, CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Eisenhower.

In 1960, CFR Kennedy (who was probably killed because he had the courage NOT to go along with all their plans) CFR Nixon. In 1964 the GOP stunned the Establishment by nominating its candidate over Nelson Rockefeller.

Rockefeller and the CFR wing proceeded to picture Barry Goldwater as a dangerous radical. In 1968 CFR Nixon ran against CFR Humphrey. The 1972 "contest" featured CFR Nixon vs. CFR McGovern.

CFR candidates for president include George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Edmund Muskie, John Anderson, and Lloyd Bentsen. In 1976 we had Jimmy Carter, who is a member of the Trilateral Commission, created by David Rockefeller and CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski with the goal of economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States, and: "...managing the world economy...a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." We have also had (though his name strangely disappears from the membership list in 1979) CFR director (1977-79) George Bush, and last but not least, CFR member Bill Clinton.

They have all promoted the "New World Order," controlled by the United Nations. The problem is that "...the present United Nations organization is actually the creation of the CFR and is housed on land in Manhattan donated to it by the family of current CFR chairman David Rockefeller," as Pat Robertson describes it.

The original concept for the UN was the outcome of the Informal Agenda Group, formed in 1943 by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. All except Hull were CFR members, and Isaiah Bowman, a founding member of the CFR, originated the idea.

The American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations in 1949 included CFR members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John McCloy, and CFR members who were communist agents--Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, and the Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss. In all, the Council sent forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome.

Since that time the CFR and its friends in the mass media (largely controlled by CFR members such as Katherine Graham of the "Washington Post" and Henry Luce of" Time, Life"), foundations, and political groups have lobbied consistently to grant the United Nations more authority and power. Bush and the Gulf War were but one of the latest calls for a "New World Order."

Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, "Kissinger ON THE COUCH." In it he states "The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States."

Most members are one-world-government ideologists whose long- term goals were officially summed up in September 1961 State Department Document 7277, adopted by the Nixon Administration: "...elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces...by the time it (UN global government) would be so strong no nation could challenge it."

Within the CFR there exists a "much smaller group but more powerful...made up of Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of the global government ...This CFR faction is headed by the Rockefeller brothers," according to Ward.

What must be remembered is that this is not some lunatic- fringe group...these are members of one of the most powerful private organizations in the world: the people who determine and control American economic, social, political, and military policy. Members' influence and control extends to "leaders in academia, public service, business, and the media," according to the CFR 1993 "Annual Report."

Their founding they describe as: "American Participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private Americans to become familiar with the increasing responsibilities and obligations of the United States...there was a need for an organization able to provide for the continuous study of U.S. foreign police for the BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS (emphasis mine) and a wider audience of interested Americans."

They sponsor hundreds of programs, where members "exchange views with American and foreign officials and policy experts... discuss foreign policy issues...consider international issues of concern to the business community" (Corporate business), and "...affiliated groups of community leaders throughout the United states...meet with decision makers."

The CFR states that it is "host to many views, advocate of none," and it "has no affiliation with the U.S. government." No, no affiliation at all, if you don't count: "A Council member was elected president of the United States...Dozens of other Council colleagues were called to serve in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions," as they describe it in "Foreign Affairs," along with many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, and many other Federal bureaucrats.

They are not AFFILIATED with government, they ARE the government, in effect.

One re-occurring view was stated in the 50th anniversary issue of "Foreign Affairs," the official publication of the CFR. In an article by Kingman Brewster, Jr. entitled "Reflections on Our National Purpose." Our purpose should be, according to him, to do away with our nationality, to "take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours..."

These "risks" include disarming to the point where we would be helpless against the "peace-keeping" forces of a global UN government. We should happily surrender our sovereignty to the world government in the interests of the "world community."

Today we have the spectacle of Spc. 4 Michael New, a U.S. soldier in Germany who refuses to wear the uniform of the UN, facing an "administrative discharge." He states rightly that he swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations. Many other Americans have taken that same oath, such as myself, and believe it is our sworn duty still to defend the Constitution, since an oath sworn before God must be fulfilled. (Why else do we swear to tell the truth in our courts, or when taking public office?) Is it a crime these days to actually BELIEVE in God and the oath that was taken?

Meanwhile, others who attempt to destroy the Constitution and our sovereignty are given honors and position...At least they are not hypocrites...only supremely arrogant.

"In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault..." in the opinion of Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974.

James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR's "brain trust," testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, "We shall have world government whether or not you like it--by conquest or consent."

Is this an AMERICAN speaking, or a dangerous lunatic? Who is this "We" who threatens to CONQUER us?

They are a group that actually has the power to do it, and is doing it every day, bit by bit.

CFR Members in the mass media, education, and entertainment push their propaganda of "humanism" and world brotherhood. We should all live in peace under a world government, and forget about such selfish things as nationalities and patriotism. We can solve our own problems. We don't need God, or morals, or values: it's all relative, anyway, right?...Because if we actually had some moral character and values, we might be able to discern that these people are actually EVIL.

The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). These people are evil because they love money and power, and greed drives them to do anything to achieve their goals. They have lost all morality and conscience, and believe such concepts, as well as our Constitution, "outdated".

THAT is insanity--to have more wealth than can be spent, and still it is never enough. They have to control governments, start wars, conspire to rule the world; least the "common people" wake up to how they have gained their wealth, take it away from them, and demand that they pay the price for their crimes.

That is why they constantly pit us one against the other, with "Diversity," Affirmative Action, and other programs,...black against white, men against women, rural against urban, ranchers against environmentalists, and on and on...least we look in their direction.

We The People are held to a much higher standard. If we threaten the President or a public official, we are charged with a crime...yet the One-World-Gang can threaten the Constitution and the liberties of We The People, the sovereign rulers of this nation, and nothing is said or done.

Perhaps they do not fear what Man can do to them... they believe they have arranged everything, and their power and wealth will prevail in this world. However, those among them who have sworn an oath before God to uphold and defend the Constitution: the President, members of Congress, and the military; may find one day that they do indeed have something to fear.

Colonel House, the fallen angel, still has relatives controlling the CFR. Karen Elliot House is Chairman of the Membership Committee, and a member of the Nominating Committee, along with Jeane Kirkpatrick. David Rockefeller is now "Honorary Chairman of the Board", after serving as Chairman 1970-1985; and "Director Emeritus," after serving as a Director 1949-1985. Peter G. Peterson is Chairman, Admiral B. R. Inman is Vice Chairman, while Thomas Foley and Jeane Kirkpatrick are Directors serving on the Executive Committee.

These "private citizens" have access to government officials and policy makers as often as they wish, yet the results of their meetings can only be given to other government officials, corporate officers, or law partners. Participants are forbidden to transmit an attributed statement to any public medium, such as newspapers or TV, where there is "risk that it will promptly be widely circulated or published," as the "Annual Report" puts it.

Should not OUR public officials be forbidden to meet in secret with private groups? Public officials should only be allowed to discuss public business and policy in a public forum. The Public...remember US?

There is much more to say about this group and their plans for America. Gary Allen, in "The Rockefeller File," states that they are behind the many regional government plans, which would abolish city, county, and state lines, leaving us at the mercy of federal bureaucrats; and behind the push for "land use" controls. They want "federal control of everything. Since they intend to control the federal government..."

There are also the many allegations of involvement in gun running, drug smuggling, prostitution and sex slaves; and the many mysterious assassinations and "suicides" of witnesses and others who get too close to the truth...but that is another story.


Bo Adelmann, 1986. "The Federal Reserve System." The New American, October 17.
Gary Allen, 1976. The Rockefeller File. Seal Beach, CA: '76 Press.
Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1972. None Dare Call it Conspiracy. Rossmoor, CA: Concord Press.
"Congressional Record," December 22, 1913, Vol. 51.
Phoebe and Kent Courtney, 1962. America's Unelected Rulers, The Council on Foreign Relations. New Orleans: Conservative Society of America.
Curtis B. Dall, 1970. FDR My Exploited Father-In-Law. Washington D.C.: Action Associates.
A. Ralph Epperson, 1985. The Unseen Hand. Tucson, AZ: Publius Press.
F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1950. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
William P. Hoar, 1984. Architects of Conspiracy. Belmont MA: Western Islands.
Herbert Hoover, 1952. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, The Great Depression 1929-1941. New York: Macmillan.
Frederick C. Howe, 1906. Confessions of a Monopolist. Chicago: Public Publishing Co.
Robert C. Johansen, 1980. Models of World Order, in "Dilemmas of War and Peace."
Peter Kershaw, 1994. "Economic Solutions."
Devvy Kidd, 1995. "Why A Bankrupt America?" Colorado: Project Liberty.
Ferdinand Lundberg, 1938. America's 60 Families. New York: Vanguard.
Louis T. McFadden, 1934. "The Federal Reserve Corporation, remarks in Congress." Boston: Forum Publication Co.
James Perloff, 1988. The Shadows of Power. Appleton, WI: Western Islands.
Carroll Quigley, 1966. Tragedy and Hope. New York: Macmillan.
Pat Robertson, 1991. The New World Order. Dallas: Word Publishing.
Charles Seymour, ed., 1926. The Intimate Paper of Colonel House. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Colin Simpson, 1972. The Lusitania. Boston: Little, Brown.
Arthur D. Howde Smith, 1940. "Mr House ob5 Texas." New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Antony C. Sutton, 1975. Wall Street and FDR. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House.
George Sylvester Viereck, 1932. The Strangest Friendship in History. New York: Liveright.

This document may be freely distributed or quoted in any medium, provided credit is given to the author and The Courier. Copyright 1995

How Much Importance Do You Place On The Words Of This Founding Father, Former President, And Eloquent Statesman?

He knows of what he speaks...

           As the Fourth of July, 1826, drew near, festivities marking fifty years of freedom were planned the length and breadth of the U.S.A. The three living Signers were invited to be present at a significant gathering in Washington, D.C. But old John Adams, now almost ninety-one, was too feeble even to participate in the celebration at Quincy. At Monticello, Thomas Jefferson, eight years younger, lay on his deathbed.

           In a dramatic climax that even their agile minds would not have contemplated, these two principals in the struggle for Independence left the nation awestricken and touched by dying hours apart on the Fourth of July. Jefferson died at one o’clock in the afternoon, Adams toward evening. Jefferson had written his last letter on June 24, addressed to the mayor of Washington, who had issued the invitation:

         “I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met…with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow-citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made…All eyes are opened to the right of man…let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollection of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”
                                                                                                                                       The end.

So, Why Can't The Rest Of America See This?

Can this many people be incorrect in their assessment of this President's progressive policies, socialist agenda, and wrongful transformation of a nation? How far he's fallen...

           When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

I don't think Obama, and the federal government as it is currently comprised, believes in this Constitution. Or maybe they've just forgotten this very pertitnent phrase.

Posted by Picasa

A Sad State Of Affairs? You Decide

Is it only a sad state of affairs that most of us can't name the signers of the Declaration of Independence? Or is it something more sinister than that? Why isn't it mandatory to learn their names in school? Why isn't it imperative that we teach young people about the very roots of our Republic? How can we guarantee it's existence, if we can't even find the will to teach it's origin and what it means to the security of Liberty, in our schools? Don't you think that is important? Don't you think the history of a country, especially America - home of Independence and Liberty- is important?

Oh, so you think you can name the signers? Ok then , go ahead! No, wait, just name 10!

I'll wait. Keep thinking.

How many have you gotten? Write them down, and we'll see how close you came. If you get more than ten, you are most likely either an historian or an amazing patriot, or both!

Ok, done? Here we go...

John Adams
Samuel Adams
John Hancock
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison

Did you get those? Well, they were the easy ones, now weren't they? Ok, let's continue. How many of these remaining fifty did you get?

Samuel Huntington
Roger Sherman
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Thomas McKean
George Read
Caesar Rodney
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Charles Carroll
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Elbridge Gerry
Robert Trear Paine
Josiah Bartlett
Matthew Thornton
William Whipple
Abraham Clark
John Hart
Francis Hopkinson
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
William Floyd
Francis Lewis
Philip Livingston
Lewis Morris
Joseph Hewes
William Hooper
John Penn
George Clymer
Robert Morris
John Morton
George Ross
Benjamin Rush
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
William Ellery
Stephen Hopkins
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Edwars Rutledge
Carter Braxton
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
George Wythe

That's right, fifty-six signers to the Declaration of Independence! Now, how many did you get right?

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!

An Appropriate Post For The 4th Of July Weekend - Enjoy!

They Signed For Us

July 2, 2010 by Chip Wood

Happy Anniversary To Us

Tomorrow will mark a full year of Straight Talk columns for Personal Liberty Digest™. How time flies when you’re having fun! As many of you know, I also write two other, shorter features for Personal Liberty Digest™ every week—Chip Shots, which appears at the bottom of Friday’s columns, and This Week in History, which appears at the bottom of Wednesday’s.

As it happens, my very first piece for Personal Liberty Digest™ was about the incredible men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure liberty for us. So it seems only appropriate to repeat that message again today, as we prepare to celebrate our 234th Independence Day. Happy July 4!

Every schoolchild in America knows why we celebrate the Fourth of July. Flags and fireworks commemorate the day we declared our independence from Britain.

On July 4, 1776, after months of heated debate, representatives of the Continental Congress voted unanimously that, “These United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and Independent States.”

Thirteen colonies voted to become something new in history—the United States of America. Now, all they had to do was win their independence from a government that would consider them traitors.

Fifty-six men bravely affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. What sort of men were they? And what became of them?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and nine were farmers or plantation owners. They were well-educated men of means. All of them had a great deal to lose when they voted to defy what was then the most powerful nation on earth. Yet they willingly risked everything when they pledged to each other “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

As I said, all of us can explain why we celebrate Independence Day on July 4th. But how many of us can name even a handful of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? How much do we know, really, about the men who risked their lives and everything they owned in the cause of freedom?

Because the story of the signers is so inspiring, we’ve arranged a special treat for you today—a free copy of a wonderful little book called They Signed For Us.

Half a century ago two patriotic ladies in the Midwest wanted to help others learn more about the remarkable men who signed the Declaration. Merle Sinclair and Annabel Douglas McArthur wrote a delightful book about the events of that time, including a history of each of the signers. They called it, They Signed For Us.

At the end of today’s column, you’ll find a link that will take you to a free copy of the book. You may read it online or download it and print your own copy. The file also includes a list of all of the signers and the states they represented, plus the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.

To whet your appetite a bit, here’s an excerpt from They Signed For Us.

"SUDDENLY THE BIG BELL in the State House steeple pealed joyously. The appointed signal! Cheers rose from the waiting crowds.

“‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land….’

“Cannon boomed, drums rolled. Church bells rang, sounding the death knell of British domination!

“News of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence spread like wildfire. Ready messengers leaped into their saddles to ride and spread the word. The Declaration had been ordered printed on a single large sheet, ‘45.5 x 37.5 cm.,’ or approximately 18 inches by 15 inches. These broadsides were distributed with all possible speed, to be read in the provincial assemblies, pulpits, market places, and army camps.”

The story continues:

“On July 8, the Liberty Bell summoned citizens of Philadelphia to the State House yard for a public reading of the document. Colonel John Nixon mounted a high platform and spoke the noble lines in a strong, clear voice. The crowd, now hushed, listened intently throughout.

“ ‘…for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’”

It was almost a month later that the Declaration was engrossed on parchment and ready for signing by the delegates to the Continental Congress. Members gathered on Aug. 2 for the ceremony.

The only person who had signed the Declaration on July 4 was John Hancock, a delegate from Boston who had been elected president of the Continental Congress. He wrote his signature in large, bold letters and as he did, in a reference to the near-sightedness of the British king, he declared, “There! John Bull can read my name without spectacles and may now double his reward of £500 for my head. That is my defiance.”

As the delegates gathered around a desk to sign the Declaration, William Emery, one of the representatives from Rhode Island, moved as close as he could. “I was determined to see how they all looked as they signed what might be their death warrants,” he later wrote. “I placed myself beside the secretary, Charles Thomson, and eyed each closely as he affixed his name to the document. Undaunted resolution was displayed on every countenance.”

Contrasting with Hancock’s confident signature was the shaky scratch of Stephen Hopkins from Rhode Island. Hopkins was the second-oldest signer and suffered from palsy. As he handed the quill to the next person, he valiantly proclaimed, “My hand trembles, but my heart does not!”

As one or two delegates hung back, seemingly reluctant to add their signatures to such a momentous declaration, John Hancock encouraged them. “We must be unanimous,” he said. “There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together.”

Legend has it that Benjamin Franklin replied, “Yes, we must all hang together. Or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

Happily, none of the signers was hanged by the British. But all of them were considered traitors to the Crown. And many of them suffered terribly for the cause they so ardently supported.

When New Jersey signer Richard Stockton returned to his home after signing the Declaration he learned that British troops were coming to arrest him. He fled to a neighbor’s house with his wife and children. But a Loyalist (as supporters of the British cause were called) betrayed the family’s hiding place. Here is how Merle Sinclair and Annabel Douglas McArthur describe what happened to him:

“The judge was dragged from bed and beaten, then thrown into prison. This distinguished jurist, who had worn the handsome robes of a colonial court, now shivered in a common jail, abused and all but starved.

“A shocked Congress arranged for his parole. Invalided by the harsh treatment he had received, he returned to [his home at] Morven to find his furniture and clothing burned, his fine horses stolen, and his library—one of the finest private collections in the country—completely destroyed. The hiding place of exquisite family silver, hastily buried, had been betrayed by a servant.

“The Stockton’s were so destitute that they had to accept charity. For the judge’s fortune was gone, too. He had pledged it and his life to his country. He lost both. He did not live to see the Revolution won.”

John Morton, a delegate from Pennsylvania, was the first of the signers to die. His last words for his family, before his death in April 1777 (just eight months after he signed the Declaration), were, “…tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it to have been the most glorious service I ever rendered to my country.”

The following month Button Gwinnett, the commander in chief of Georgia’s militia, was badly wounded in a duel with a political opponent. He died a few days later—the second signer to die.

But by and large, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were a hardy bunch. Three of them lived until their 90s—a remarkable accomplishment in a time when most men did not see their 50th birthday.

Only two of the signers were bachelors. Sixteen of them married twice. Records indicate that at least two, and perhaps as many as six, were childless. But the other 50 signers were a prolific lot, having a total of 325 children between them! William Ellerey of Rhode Island had 17 children; Roger Sherman of Connecticut had 15.

Fifty years after the united colonies declared their independence from Britain, plans were made for jubilant celebrations on July 4, 1826. Only three of the original signers were still alive—Charles Carroll, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Here is how Sinclair and McArthur describe what occurred that day:

“In a dramatic climax that even their agile minds would not have contemplated, these two principals in the struggle for Independence left the nation awestricken and touched, by dying hours apart on the Fourth of July. Jefferson died at one o’clock in the afternoon, Adams toward evening.”

Ten days earlier Jefferson had written the mayor of Washington, expressing his regret that ill health prevented him from coming to the nation’s new Capitol to join the festivities.

“I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met… with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between the submission or the sword.”

And he concluded by writing, “Let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollection of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

As part of that “undiminished devotion,” we are delighted to provide you with a free copy of They Signed For Us. Please click here for it.

And please share this copy of Straight Talk with others you know so they may enjoy it as well. Just forward this column with a short note urging them to read about the incredibly brave patriots who won our freedom for us when They Signed For Us.

Until next time, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood

So, How Much Do You Love Your Country?

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Questions, Questions

You would think that someone elected to the position of Mayor in a city the size of Chicago - or in any city for that matter - would most likely be more intelligent than I. But when I read the following story I immediately thought "Well, what happens if someone has to protect themselves from a mugging, or a robbery, while not inside their home?" And then I thought, "What happens if the one gun you're allowed to have that's in working order is in your bedroom, but you're in the basement when an intruder breaks in? Wouldn't it be nice to have more than one operable gun in the house in case it was needed? Are you supposed to carry the gun around with you while you do the laundry?" "And what if there is more than one resident in a house who wants to own a gun?" This sounds like a law that's really quite unenforceable.

So Mr. Mayor, can you answer those simple questions for me? I can't imagine you would be so small as to wantonly and petulantly try to thwart the will of the people and the United States Supreme Court, now would you?

Here's the story...

By DON BABWIN, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO – With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city's South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.

"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :

• Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

• Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

• Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

• Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28 years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

"We've gone farther than anyone else ever has," said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges.

Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he'd hoped to include, including requiring gun owners to insure their weapons and restricting each resident to one handgun.

Georges said it would be expensive for homeowners to include guns on their homeowners' and renters' insurance policies, so such a requirement could be seen as being discriminatory to the city's poorer residents. Limiting the number of handguns could be seen as discriminatory to people who owned weapons before the city's ban went into effect in 1982 or before they moved into the city.

"We can limit the place in which those handguns can be located," she said, before adding a not-so-veiled swipe at the court: "For instance, the Supreme court does not want them coming into the courthouse."

Still, Daley indicated that no matter what was included in the ordinance, he expects legal challenges.

"Everybody has a right to sue," he said.

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

Do You Believe The Government Has Reduced Liberty In America Over The Years? So Why Do So Many Lack The Desire For Independence?

Independence Forever!

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, July 1, 2010

"The Declaration of Independence [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson

The principle author of our Declaration of Independence1, Thomas Jefferson, understood that, though Liberty is "endowed by our Creator," it is difficult to maintain among men. "The natural progress of things," he wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Indeed it is. We boldly threw off a monarchy in the American Revolution, but today countless bureaucrats under the command of a pack of hardcore Socialists have assumed the throne.

Jefferson also understood the consequences of Socialism: "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." But 234 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence, Beltway politicos, most of the "Democrat" variety, insist that we must conduct ourselves, in matters large and small, according to their will -- and would have us believe they know better than we. Indeed, they have so effectively institutionalized this deceit that their electoral lemmings fall in behind them in lock step.

That subservience is an affront to our hard-won heritage of Liberty, and an insult to those generations who have defended it.

On July 4th of 1776, our Founders, assembled as representatives to the Second Continental Congress, issued a declaration stating most notably: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

In other words, the Founders rightly affirmed that because our rights are inherent by Natural Law as granted from our Creator, as such they can't be arbitrarily alienated by those who believed that the rights of men are gifts of government.

Our Founders publicly declared their intentions to defend these rights by attaching their signatures to the Declaration between July 4th and August 2nd of 1776. They and their fellow Patriots pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor2 as they set about to defend the Natural Rights of man.

At the conclusion of the American War for Independence in 1783, our Founders determined that the new nation needed a more suitable alliance among the states than the Articles of Confederation. After much deliberation, they proposed a Constitution3, which authorized a very limited central governing authority and reserved all other rights to the states or the people4. Our Constitution was adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and implemented in 1789 as subordinate guidance to our Declaration of Independence.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have laid down their lives "to support and defend5" the Essential Liberty6 enshrined in our Constitution. I would note here that their sacred oath, the same one I have taken many times in the service of our country, is not in support and defense of a so-called "living Constitution7," an adulterated version of our authentic Constitution. It is under such perversion that Socialists in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches have advanced their statist political agenda.

Statism, or Progressivism as promoted by contemporary American Leftists, has as its objective the establishment of an omnipotent central government authorized to be the arbiter of all that is "good" for "the people." Statism also confers upon the state ultimate control over the most significant social manifestation of individual rights, that of economic enterprise. Witness our current government's efforts to assert ever-greater control over heretofore private enterprises such as the automotive, health care, financial and energy industries.

Socialists endeavor to undermine our nation's founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives, under which all associations between individuals ultimately augment the power and control of the state. The final expression and inevitable terminus of such power and control, if allowed to progress unabated, is tyranny.

The word "tyranny" is derived from the Latin "tyrannus," which translates to "illegitimate ruler."

Leftists in all levels of government, who, by definition, have deserted their oaths to support and defend our bona fide Constitution, are thus as illegitimate as the rules they implement.

Thank God there is a strong resurgence of demand for Essential Liberty6 and the Rule of Law across the Fruited Plain; a rebirth of the understanding that limited government is essential to Liberty; and a resounding call to take control of our national destiny and reset its course for the shores of freedom.

So how should we observe this 4th of July, the 234th celebration of our Declaration of Independence?

On July 3, 1776, Founding Patriot John Adams wrote to his beloved wife, Abigail, on this very topic:

Yesterday, the greatest question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater, perhaps, never was or will be decided among men. You will see in a few days a Declaration setting forth the causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution, and the reasons which will justify it in the sight of God and man. ... It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Day's Transaction.

Today, we face ominous threats to our American heritage of Liberty, unfortunately more so from enemies within than without, and I would offer that we should commemorate this Independence Day, first and foremost, with "solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty," and with a rededication to the principles of Essential Liberty and restoration of the Rule of Law8.

On December 19th of 1776, with the American Revolution well underway, Thomas Paine wrote, "Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, we came forth to meet and to repulse it. ... I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake."

And so it must be, today.

Reflecting on the Declaration shortly before his death on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of our founding, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

It is entirely fitting that Jefferson's fellow Patriot and longtime correspondent would also draw his last breath on that very day. But before he passed, John Adams offered these words of reflection: "[W]hat do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations. ... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution."

And Adams's last public words serve as an inspiration to us all, a toast to Liberty: "Independence forever!"

Libertas! And let us all say, Amen.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

We're At The Crossroads; Do We Want To Keep Heading Down This Path?

The Progressive’s Plan to Make America a Third World Nation

Posted on June 26, 2010 by libertyssong
by Richard H. Frank

Unless you have had the opportunity to travel for extended periods of time to Asia, South America, Europe and the Indian continents, you may not really appreciate the definition of a “third world nation.” In most countries located on these continents a “middle class society” is non-existent. The gap in the standard of living between these countries and the United States is unimaginable unless you have seen and experienced it with your own eyes. The access and availability to the basics for survival, including clothing, food and shelter presents a stark contrast between the “haves” and “have not” members of these societies. Should a citizen in these countries be fortunate enough to have a job in Government or the Military, they are considered and identified as “middle class.” In most instances, these individuals are not property owners, have not experienced higher education and rely heavily upon Government-administered programs as a basis for their standard of living. Welfare recipients in the United States appreciate a higher standard of living than does the average citizen in many of the third world countries.

So what has made the difference between the United States and Third World Nations? I believe the answer is “The Constitution” and our “free enterprise system,” as well as “limited central Government.” Over the past 100 years all of these foundations of our Nation have been under an unrelenting attack by the liberal Progressive Movement in America. Education, rewriting history and removing God from our schools was the initial assault upon our liberty. the establishment of unfunded entitlements, government pensions, nationalization of private enterprise, the nation’s resources and uncontrolled spending have taxed the nation’s private sector to the breaking point. Central planning with redistribution of wealth is the current initiative within our Federal Government and is the next step to elimination of the middle class in America and making us a third world nation.

The tipping point was exceeded when Government employment exceeded the private sector earlier this year. Government produces nothing while incurring costs in the form of taxes, fees and assessments imposed upon the private sector. Over time, Government, like a snake eating its own tail, will eventually devour itself. When that process is complete we will be left with a third world nation oppressed by a tyrannical Government controlling every aspect of our lives.

There is still time to stop this slide into tyranny by returning to the principles that made America the greatest nation in history. Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Advance the principles of the free enterprise system and insist that Government return to the balance of powers prescribed in the Constitution. Assure that the size and scope of the Federal Government is limited to that described in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

It's Time, And Downright Imperative, That We Repeal The 17th Amendment

Reading through the Constitution of the United States, it is explicitly documented that all Senators will serve for 6-yr terms and that they would be chosen by the legislature of their state. Then, under Woodrow Wilson - a progressive Democrat - the 17th Amendment was crafted and ratified. That amendment changed the constitution from by the legislature to by the people. Our founders set it up so that the Senate would be "comtrolled" by the states, not the people. The people had control of members in the House of Representatives - elected for only 2-year terms, providing for more direct accountability to their constituents. The 17th Amendment clearly contradicts the Constitution, so how was it allowed to fly? I could find no challenges by any state on those grounds, and yet the Amendment clearly lessens the power of states over the Federal government. But in my research I did find this article that suggests others are are thinking along these same lines: http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1772/repealing-seventeenth-amendment. Here's a good article on the subject as well.

 Patton: The 17th Amendment Was a Very Bad Idea

By Doug Patton June 29, 2010

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -- Thomas Jefferson, in 1821

The most anti-American president in the history of the country -- at least until Barack Obama entered the White House -- was Woodrow Wilson. Elected in 1912, Wilson was a racist progressive Democrat who viewed the Founders and the Constitution with disdain. During his first year in office, he promoted two of the most destructive amendments to the U.S. Constitution ever ratified -- the 16th, which gave us the direct federal income tax, and the 17th, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators.

The popular election of our senators is bad public policy because it stripped the states of the one voice of representation they had in Washington, DC. James Madison, remembered as the Father of the Constitution, cautioned against "nationalism," wherein a strong national government would rule from Washington. Madison instead favored a new system, to be known as "federalism," which would give co-equal powers to the state and the federal governments. One of the key aspects of maintaining this distinction was the manner in which U.S. Senators were selected.

The House of Representatives, Madison said, would be the direct advocate for the people, and would be elected through their direct vote. U.S. Senators would be selected by their state legislatures, and would represent the interests of the states. By the end of the 19th Century, widespread corruption within state legislatures was rampant. At least that was the excuse used by those who advocated ratification of the 17th Amendment. As if there is no corruption surrounding this issue under the current system. Anyone been watching the trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich in Illinois?

Imagine how much more accountable United States Senators would be to the states they allegedly represent if they had to answer to the legislators in that state, rather than to the fickle whim of voters.

Blagojevich is on trial for trying to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat. If the state legislature had been tasked with finding a replacement, rather than the governor, perhaps the people of Illinois might have someone more competent than Roland Burris.

Perhaps Sen. Ben Nelson would have listened to his constituents' opinion on Obamacare if he had known that the Nebraska Legislature could have replaced him at will.

Do you think that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have so brazenly disregarded the wishes of Nevada had his fate rested in the hands of the legislature?

How does the fact that Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut raises almost all his campaign money from out of state donors -- a practice that would be neither necessary nor tolerated under the old system -- further the interests of his state?

What are the chances Sen. John Kerry would not be called on the carpet by the Massachusetts Legislature for voting in favor of a federal health care bill that duplicates legislation already in effect at the state level?

Today, Alaska does not have the authority to allow oil drilling in ANWR because of federal interference. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is battling the feds over his state's right to protect its coastal wetlands from BP's oil spill. Jindal has also had to take the Obama administration to court in order to stop the president's moratorium on offshore drilling. The state of Arizona is being sued by the Justice Department for enforcing immigration law. Everywhere we turn, the states are being crushed under the boot heel of an out-of-control federal government.

The United States has repealed only one amendment in the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified. It is time for the 17th Amendment to join the 18th on the ash heap of history.

Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers can e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Where's The Hue And Cry?

Well I must admit I'm not surprised. But for all you liberals who have bought (hook, line and sinker) into the notion that the environmentalists really do care about the environment I hope the reality of the Gulf oil spill has you all rethinking your allegiances. I really do.

Where's the hue and cry? That's what I'd like to know!

It's been 70+ days of oil leaking relatively unimpeded into the Gulf of Mexico. Shorelines in Texas, Louisianna, Alabama and Florida (and probably Mexico and some eastern states) will ultimately be affected. Eco-systems are being destroyed. Islands are becoming uninhabitable for certain species, and waterways are being destroyed. While all this is going on, the Obama administration, while ensuring they have adequate opportunities for photo-ops, have not displayed any level of true leadership on the issue. Months ago Kevin Costner suggested the use of machines he designed to help control and clean up the spill. Finally, this week, BP accepted his offer. The government has yet to comment on it. Where were they? Where was the presure from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups (or individuals)? There are about 20 skimmer ships in the Gulf - out of over a thousand in the country. Why haven't they all been deployed down there? And Obama has dismissed the offers from 13 individual countries to help us with the problem. And the oil keeps pouring out.

So I ask again, where's the hue and cry from the environmentalists? Hmmmm maybe, just maybe, they have a different agenda after all...

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention

Do You Know Enough Yet?

I took the libertyof "lifting" this off the NEW ZEAL website (Newzeal.blogspot.com) - check it out!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

The Marxo-Fascist 'Social and Economic Justice' Ties that Bind
ShoreBank, Obama, big labor, community organizers, manufacturers, Canadian socialists, progressive trade organizations, triple bottom-line corporations & the Small Business Administration, on the "High Road" to the controlled society

by JeanWTPUSA, www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com

Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center pointed out in a 09/23/08 Wall Street Journal article that, “Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience.”

The experience that Kurtz referred to was Obama’s appointment in 1995 as Chairman of the Board at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) a “school reform organization” founded by his longtime friend and political ally, Bill Ayers. Ayers, a home grown terrorist for the Weather Underground during the Vietnam War era, has written, in his book Teaching Toward Freedom, that his educational objective is to “teach against oppression” as embodied in “America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.”

Kurtz notes that Obama served on the Board or the CAC until 1999 and remained actively involved in the organization until 2001. Although Obama was insistent that the extent of his relationship with Ayers consisted in his being just “a guy” from the neighborhood, a September 2008 article from WorldNetDaily offers details that Obama’s relationship with Ayers was much deeper and that CAC frequently granted money to far-leftist organizations and causes.

Kurtz, in a follow-up article published in the National Review, exposed Obama’s wealth redistributionist ties to the New Party. According to Discover the Networks, most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyites, and Communist Party USA members.

Although the Obama machine tried to dismiss Kurtz on its Fight the Smears website, evidence showed that Obama was heavily involved in the New Party in 1995 and according to New Party News of Spring 1996, page 1, was a bona fide New Party member.

According to the Romanticpoet’s weblog, evidence compiled by noted Marxist researcher, Trevor Loudon, demonstrates that Obama, as early as 1993, was involved with a New Party “sister” organization, Progressive Chicago.

This organization was formed by members of the New Party as a support group for “progressive” candidates. Its main instigators included New Party members Madeline Talbott of ACORN-Chicago and Dan Swinney, a Chicago labor unionist.

In 1994 Dan Swinney was listed on a "Membership, Subscription and Mailing List" for the Chicago Committees of Correspondence, an offshoot of the Communist Party USA. And, in 2009 Dan Swinney, Center for Labor and Community Research (CLCR) was listed as a signer of the Progressives for Obama website.

Although CLCR’s Mission “To strengthen communities through initiatives to redefine, rediscover, and rebuild the manufacturing sector in the knowledge economy,” seems rather benign and almost altruistic. However, a closer look at the documents on the organizations “Publications“ page makes clear that CLCR is focused on social, economic and environmental (green) justice.

One example is Dan Swinney’s article on “Building the Bridge to the High Road.” Let’s take a look at what the Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism had to say in its review of Swinney’s work.

He's preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. I've written myself about the need for the alternative economy or counter-economy to grow beyond merely operating in the interstices of a state capitalist structure, and to evolve into an interlocking network of cooperative production, finance and retail operations that will eventually supplant the existing state capitalist framework.

The blogger offers further praise:

Swinney draws several lessons from his years of experience in the CLCR, of using High Road practices to save and turn around failing business firms under labor and community leadership.

One of them I strongly agree with:

The market is not synonymous with capitalism. The market is an achievement of human civilization that both predates capitalism and will persist for a long time even if capitalism is replaced by another system.

Another interesting item is CLCR’s relationship with ShoreBank. Bob Williams writes in a June 2003 article titled “Model of Economic Democracy” that “Shorebank Group from Chicago’s South Side” functioned as a “mentor” in helping Williams establish “Western Canada’s largest financial services cooperative,” Vancity Capital Corporation, a subsidiary of the Vancity Credit Union, which functions as a business lender in the new economy, that lends against cash flow on a subordinated debt basis (cashflow-based, unsecured term loan financing) to British Columbia’s businesses, co-operatives and non-profit organizations. According to Vancouver’s Straight.com, “Vancity has over $14.5 billion in assets and more than 400,000 members” and focuses on environmental success and social sustainability.

Williams grew up in an “old socialist family,” and like Barack Obama is very familiar with Community Organizing and community organizers. He is also used to serving on the board of organizations that focus on “economic justice” and has served in public office as the Chairman of the board of the Crown’s Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. (also of interest on ICBC’s website, B.C.’s Fairness Commission Report - related to healthcare).

Williams a devotee of Bologna, Italy’s Professor Stefano Zamagni, writes in his 2003 article that:

The old Chicago school view of economics as “only an exchange of equivalents” in a commercial marketplace is a view that is unacceptable to Zamagni.
“… the modern attempt to build the welfare state as a highly motivated goal that has gone somewhat awry because of the nature of state delivery systems and the lack of reciprocity in the relationship between the provider of welfare and the client; a pattern that is complicated further by the differing values of the politician and bureaucrat involved in the process.”

It appears that Dan Swinney has learned a lot from Robert (Bob) Williams about “globalization” and “redistributive wealth.” After graduating with a Bachelor's in History from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Dan worked as a machinist for 13 years in the Chicago area. He organized Steelworker Local 8787 at G+W Taylor Forge in Cicero, Illinois and served as Vice President. Taylor Forge closed in 1983. Dan founded the Center for Labor and Community Research (CLCR) in 1982 in response to the thousands of manufacturing plant closings in the Chicago area.

In July 2005, Swinney started the Chicago Manufacturing Renaissance Council. CMRC has been working to inform the public and influence key leaders, organizations and institutions about the social and economic viability and vitality of the modern manufacturing economy and has established “partnerships” with The City of Chicago, the Department of Community Development and the Office of Apprenticeship, U.S. Department of Labor, and was even commissioned by Illinois Manufacturers’ Association to issue a report, to analyze the condition of Illinois manufacturing.

Although the CMRC may also seem like a benign, pro-business, pro-manufacturing organization, “The Trade Association as a Factor in Reconstruction” by Franklin D. Jones, Counselor at Law, Washington, D.C. clearly reveals that American “reconstruction” involves not only “labor organizations,” like the SEIU but also large and seemingly “reputable” trade organizations.

This fact helps answer the question, “Why would a trade organization that appears to be pro-business and pro-USA manufacturing jobs, like the Illinois Manfuacturers’ Association, commission a socialist organization like the CMRC to issue a report?

If trade associations are indeed involved in this reconstruction effort, Obama’s appointment of Ron Bloom as Manufacturing Czar, makes perfect sense. Because it is only when big labor, trade associations and government are working together that “reconstruction” can be achieved and a Socialist Utopia can be realized.

Ron Bloom, Obama's Mao-quoting manufacturing czar

In the book, Global Profit and Global Justice, Shorebank, like Vancity, designs, implements, manages, and advises loan programs in local banks and loan funds, in developing and transitional economies, with capital from major financial institutions. Also like Vancity, ShoreBank’s focus is on “triple bottom line investing,” the idea that a truly sound investment is one that provides financial rewards and offers social and environmental benefits.

To destroy the free U.S economy, Globalist companies’ world-wide must be supportive of “reconstruction” efforts. Groups servicing these companies must be able to identify projects, raise capital, and locate strategic partners. World’s leaders on sustainability must frequently get together to attend conferences where they can network and exchange information and ideas on the best way to implement their New World Order agenda.

On the home front, globalists, through our liberal-biased educational system, the liberal media and various propaganda initiatives have succeeded in demonizing our Founders, our Constitution, business, capitalism and the free market.

However, total reconstruction can not be achieved by “brainwashing” alone which has been going on for decades. It has to be achieved through a coordinated effort that, in effect, demoralizes and discourages entrepreneurs who attempt to realize the “American Dream.”

Entrepreneurs will have to be chronically discouraged. Therefore, taxpayer funded governmental agencies, like the Small Business Administration, developed to help entrepreneurs and small and medium sized businesses with training, and financial opportunities must function as a deterrent by offering “red-tape” and misdirection for entrepreneurs seeking help.

To achieve reconstruction, start-ups and existing small and medium sized businesses must achieve a high rate of failure. And, the SBA must purposely have such poor and lax oversight that every program they are tasked with administering is completely unsuccessful, so their mission is never realized.

They must also establish small business loan programs that are riddled with “red-tape,” in addition to setting unrealistic expectations for small business owners who obtain SBA loans, to ensure that there is a high percentage of loan defaults. This creates a huge financial burden for many community banks and further adds to the growing federal deficit, a win-lose situation where the socialists win and the capitalists lose.

In terms of competition in the marketplace, the system, through regulation, must create an un-level playing field that makes it so difficult to for companies to compete and make a profit, that they are forced to “move” jobs overseas. This creates a win-win for the globalists, because when jobs are moved overseas, economic prosperity is “shifted” from the United States to poorer countries. This creates “wealth redistribution” and “social justice” for other citizens of the world. and results in the job losses that causes our communities to further decline and our standard of living to further decrease. Again, the socialists win and the capitalists lose.

We already know that government is growing at such a fast pace that its growth is endangering our economy. If the end goal is to create a Marxo-Fascist “welfare state” where citizens are entirely dependent on the government for everything; healthcare, housing, food, etc, what better way to achieve this goal then by controlling labor organizations, infiltrating trade organizations, and “sabotaging” entrepreneurs and small and medium sized businesses, to minimize the growth of the private sector?

Permission granted to republish and reproduce with author (JeanWTPUSA of We the People USA) attribution. Any citation of Investigating Obama as original source is appreciated, but not requested.

Monday, June 28, 2010

What WAS He Talking About?

Barack OBAMA, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story."


Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians. Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ?
Bill of Rights?

Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East . No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .

That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America .

If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!