Archive for New World Order

Interview – Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Posted in Does Your Government Scare You?, End the Fed, Impostors with tags , , , on September 16, 2010 by undercover4liberty

Do these people have an uncanny strong resemblence to each other?

Posted in Does Your Government Scare You?, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on May 11, 2010 by undercover4liberty

America’s Destruction is an Inside Job

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, End the Fed, Impostors, Media Whores, Police Brutality, Police State, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 27, 2010 by undercover4liberty

Police State 4

Invisible Empire

U.S. troops’ continental insignia bears U.N. colors

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, Impostors, Obama's Socialist Tactics Exposed, Police State, Pompous Politicians, Republic vs Democracy, The Constitution with tags , , , , , , on November 17, 2009 by undercover4liberty

NEW YORK – Troops in the United States’ USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength of a plan to integrate North America.

The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the U.N.

It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit’s service in North Africa in World War II.

The insignia patch is displayed on the 5th Army website, the home of U.S. Army North, USARNORTH, the Joint Force Land Component Command and the Army Service Component Command of USNORTHCOM.

The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif.

Army shoulder patch of North American continent in U.N. colors

In 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series detailing that USNORTHCOM is a U.S. military combatant command created to respond to national emergencies in North America.

WND also has reported that the U.S. and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The USNORTHCOM logo similarly displays a continental design, but without the U.N. colors, as is clear from the emblem displayed in the upper left hand corner of the USNORTHCOM Internet homepage:

North America plot

WND reported last month the integration of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful “conspiracy theory,” actually was an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and sold to President Bush as a means of increasing commerce and business interest throughout North America, according to a top Canadian businessman.

Thomas d’Aquino, CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, confirmed in an interview recently published in Canada the accuracy of what WND first reported more than three years ago: The Council on Foreign Relations was the prime mover in establishing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.

A close reading of an interview with d’Aquino published by the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Oct. 4 confirms that the creation of the SPP was not a “conspiracy theory” but a well thought-out North American integration plan launched by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.

The interview further confirmed President Obama wants to continue North American integration under the rebranded North American Leaders Summit, providing the North American Competitiveness Council can be recast to include more environmentalists and union leaders.

In the interview, d’Aquino traced the origin of SPP to his concerns after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 that “there was a pressing need to keep the border open for commerce while simultaneously addressing the security needs of the United States and North America as a whole.”

With this goal in mind, d’Aquino reported the CCCE by 2003 “launched an agenda that we called the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, or NASPI.”

WND reported in July 2007 the term “Security and Prosperity” first was used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in a Jan. 23, 2003, report, “Security and Prosperity: Toward a New Canada–United States Partnership in North America.”

Then, in 2003, d’Aquino took the idea to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I helped convince Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations that we should put together a trilateral task force to look at the future of North America,” d’Aquino said. “We recruited John Manley on Canada’s side, along with William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, the former Mexican economy minister, who had been so influential in promoting NAFTA.”

The result was a CFR Task Force on the Future of North America created Oct. 15, 2004, and chaired by Manley, Weld and Aspe, precisely as d’Aquino had recommended to Haass.

The CFR Task Force on the Future of North America issued an executive summary entitled “Creating a North American Community” on March 14, 2005, just days prior to the March 23, 2005, trilateral summit at Waco, Texas, in which President George W. Bush, then–Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then–Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the SPP on their own authority, without any approval from the U.S. Congress.

The final report from the group, called “Building a North American Community,” was issued in March 2005, immediately following the Waco summit.

D’Aquino appears to agree the CFR task force was instrumental to the trilateral summit in Waco in which the SPP was declared, saying in the published interview, “The result of all these efforts [by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America] was that in 2005, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox decided to sign what they called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – the SPP.”

WND has reported that the two reports issued by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America were the “blueprint” for the SPP declared at the Waco summit meeting.

The final CFR report’s own statement of purpose is: “The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”

Next, d’Aquino confirmed that the North American Competitiveness Council was hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries, without any legislative approval in any of the three nations, again as WND had reported.

“At their next summit meeting, in 2006, the three leaders invited leading members of the CEO communities in the three countries to provide private-sector input on issues related to competitiveness,” he continued. “From that idea, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was born, to be composed of 10 frontline CEOs from each of Canada, the United States and Mexico.”

How the CFR plan became SPP

“We produced 10 of our most senior CEO’s, while the Americans established an executive committee of 15 representing a broad range of large companies with rotating memberships. The Mexicans produced some heavy-duty people – many names you know well.”

As WND reported at the time, the NACC dominated the third annual SPP summit meeting held in Montebello, Quebec, Canada, in August 2007.

“The first meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007,” d’Aquino confirmed. “Our Mexican and American counterparts graciously asked us to write the first NACC report. It was very well received, albeit heavily criticized by unions on the left and others as elitist: ‘Why did these people have access to the national leaders while everyone else was left out?'”

He then reported the NACC continued to advise the SPP leaders behind closed doors at the fourth annual SPP summit meeting in New Orleans in April 2008.

“The second meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place at their summit in New Orleans in 2008 – we were in the room with the leaders for a full hour and a half,” he said.

D’Aquino then confirmed Obama would only want to continue with the SPP initiative if more environmentalists and union leaders were included in the private advisory group that had consisted entirely of business leaders under the aegis of the NACC.

“When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisers were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al.”

Still, d’Aquino continued to argue that the NACC should not be abandoned, a decision WND has reported the Obama administration made.

“But at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful,” d’Aquino said. “In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues.”

WND repeatedly has reported the unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives – 10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries.

Two Wings of the Same Bird.

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, Impostors, Prophetic/Bibical with tags , , on October 28, 2009 by undercover4liberty

I think that most of us who have wondered why America is not prominent in the Bible in the last days now have our answer.2Wings1BirdNew

Of course America did not exist in Bible times for anyone to write about. But surely the most powerful nation ever would have some veiled reference to it inthe Bible.

51Q9AY9YCJL._SL500_AA240_

The answer is that we have a president trying to make America equal to every banana republic in the world. Galloping globalism, in fact, has almost every world leader acknowledging that all nations must be equal and play on a level field.

FED_dees

There can be no superpowers. I am conservative when it comes to throwing out conspiratorial words and phrases. I have little patience with those who e-mail me items trying to convince me that George W. Bush and his administration looked the other way so that 9/11 could happen. Such nonsense does not need to be cluttering our minds. I even reacted when President George H.W. Bush threw out the term “new world order” years ago. But only those ignorant of God’s prophetic word — and particularly in the book of Revelation – would deny that there is coming a new world system: A one-world government, one-world religion, one-world currency, and one-world leader. So I was not surprised when a Fox News headline online stated, “Obama to Usher in New World Order at G-20.” Even ten years ago few thought that within a decade America would be tanking as it is now, due heavily to men and women in Washington who have little regard for our Constitution and who are power-hungry. While we have always had ardent communists and socialists in America, few thought they would rise to some of the highest positions in the country. The English version of the Russian Daily, Pravda, wrote on April 27, 2009, “American capitalism gone without a whimper.” Quite shocking, isn’t it, since all of this happened almost overnight? The author, Stanislav Mishin, goes on to say, “It must be like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism happening with breathtaking speed.” Many in leadership in America feel the government must save us from ourselves.

nanny-state-book-cover

 

We are too foolish to make the right decisions, and government, which has become god, must make them for us with policies that are just plain evil. Some of our nation’s leaders want to micromanage everything we do and buy from cradle to grave. America has become Orwellian in just a few months. A few months ago Barack Obama said to the U.N. General Assembly, “We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.” Let’s clarify that statement as Obama is saying that America is just another country with no moral basis for world leadership. Further, in his America-bashing around the world in just less than a year, he has implied or stated firmly that American is flawed, so inherently sinful, that it cannot be trusted with, and does not merit the possession of overarching world power. Furthering this road map to the one-world system, be aware that in mid-December the 2009 United Nations’ Climate Change Conference will be held in Copenhagen. Many who have read the treaty to be signed at that meeting suggest that the purpose of it is really global government. Global warming and climate change will just be the vehicles used and most every nation, including America represented by Barack Obama will sign it. It advocates transferring the wealth from rich countries to the poor. As astounding as it may sound, this treaty will trump our Constitution! Because of that, if America is really to participate, the U.S. Senate must ratify it. The current Senate is a lackey to every left-wing cause in America and the world. We do not yet know how this will play out. As this is written, Obama says he may not go to Copenhagen at all. Whether he is there or not, the purpose of Copenhagen will remain: Rush global government. I can only encourage you to continue to pray without ceasing for our great nation.

Look Very Closely

Do You See The Demon Between the Two Candidates ?

The powers of darkness are trying to consume America. Many on the Left are in favor of this. Only the righteous can turn things around — if there is yet time to do so. We must never give up hope, for without hope, the heart grows sick.

Alex Jones:The Fall of the Republic The Presidency of Barack H. Obama (High Quality)

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, End the Fed, Impostors, Obama's Socialist Tactics Exposed, Pompous Politicians, Prophetic/Bibical, The Constitution, What Rights do you Have?, Your Government Protecting Your Rights with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2009 by undercover4liberty

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, Obama's Socialist Tactics Exposed, Police State, Pompous Politicians, The Constitution with tags , , , , , on October 21, 2009 by undercover4liberty

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.”

“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

Hoyer compared a health insurance mandate to the government’s power to levy taxes, saying “we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes.”

The section of the Constitution Hoyer was referring to, Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes, but not the purchasing any type of product or service. The opening paragraph of Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise taxes to, among other things, “provide for the … general welfare of the United States.”

Section 8 partly reads: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

The Constitution then details the specific powers of Congress, including raising an Army and Navy, regulating commerce between states, and to “make all laws necessary and proper” for the carrying out of these enumerated powers.

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” concludes Section 8.

CNSNews.com also asked Hoyer if there is a limit to what Congress can mandate that Americans purchase and whether there is anything that specifically could not be mandated to purchase. Hoyer said that eventually the Supreme Court would find a limit to Congress’ power, adding that mandates that unfairly favored one person or company over another would obviously be unconstitutional.

“I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit,” Hoyer said. “For instance, if we mandated that you buy General Motors’ automobiles, I believe that would be far beyond our constitutional responsibility and indeed would violate the Due Process Clause as well – in terms of equal treatment to automobile manufacturers.”


U.S. Constitution

Hoyer said that the insurance mandate was constitutional because Congress is not forcing Americans to buy one particular policy, just any health insurance policy.

“We don’t mandate that they buy a particular insurance [policy] but what we do mandate is that like driving a car — if you’re going to drive a car, to protect people on the roadway, and yourself, and the public for having to pay your expenses if you get hurt badly – that you need to have insurance,” said Hoyer.

In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported the following about health insurance mandates: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Under all five of the health care bills currently being considered in Congress, every American adult would have to have a policy that conformed to government standards for coverage and premiums. Each bill creates Bronze, Silver, and Gold health insurance plans and mandates that Americans buy one of them, either through their employer or through government-run exchanges.

David B. Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer with Baker & Hostetler, told CNSNews.com that Hoyer’s argument was “silly,” adding that if the general welfare clause was that elastic, then nothing would be outside of Congress’ powers.

“Congressman Hoyer is wrong,” Rivkin said. “The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that’s true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything.

“The arguments are, I believe, feeble,” he said.