Jobs and the economy are at the top of the list for the upcoming election. Those who count the votes will decide who wins. Between illegal aliens voting, electronic machines, scanners, tainted voting rolls and cheaters, we won’t know who actually won from the top down. Again.
WASHINGTON — According to press reports from sycophants in the mainstream media, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin had a productive, 2-hour, private meeting of the minds during this week’s G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Don’t believe it.
30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right
Southern Poverty Law Center ^ | Summer 2012 | Staff
Posted on Friday, May 25, 2012 10:33:06 AM by Twotone
The last decade has seen major changes in the American radical right. What was once a world largely dominated by a few relatively well-organized groups has become a scene populated by large numbers of smaller, weaker groups, with only a handful led by the kind of charismatic chieftains that characterized the 1990s
In 1992’s Republican presidential primaries, Pat Buchanan was the leading opponent to George Bush, Sr. Buchanan deliberately revived Lindbergh’s cry “America First” while challenging the interventionism of neocons in Bush’s administration. This battle continued in 1993-94 (when the Ahlgren-Monier and Behn books appeared), as patriots fought to keep America out of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. Joining those entanglements devastated American manufacturing and sent millions of jobs overseas.
No one had symbolized “isolationism” more than Lindbergh. And his father, U.S. Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., was a chief opponent of our entering World War I and bitterly fought the Federal Reserve Act, which he prophesied would benefit a few bankers while plaguing average Americans with inflation and economic despair.
In the 1990s, globalists of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — whose members dominate key positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations — envisioned a “new world order” where America would yield sovereignty to a NAFTA-based North American Union and engage in endless foreign interventions. They also thirsted for billions in bailout dollars for their multinational banks and corporations. Since these bailouts would come largely from “fiat” money (created from nothing by the U.S. Federal Reserve), working Americans would pay for the bailouts through soaring inflation.
Prison Planet.com » March 31: Operation Global Blackout: Hackers Intend to Shut Down the Internet by Disabling Core DNS Servers
Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones’ Facebook Infowars st
Thursday March 29, 2012
The hacking group known as Anonymous intends to attack the core servers that control the routing of all internet traffic. DNS, or Domain Name Servers, are a critical backbone of the web and make it possible for internet surfers to reach web site destinations by typing in a domain name in their browsers. Once a particular web site is requested, a query is sent to a domain name server, which then redirects that web address to a specific IP address on the web. Without these servers, access to web sites through traditional means (typing in a ‘dot com’) becomes impossible, because there is no way to direct the traffic to the appropriate web site destination.
According to a statement released by Anonymous, it is these servers that will come under fire on Saturday, March 31.
Forbes ^ | 12/15/2011 | Kenneth Rapoza
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2011 10:33:02 AM by Qbert
President Barack Obama hit China automobile tire makers with a trade tariff in 2009 and now Beijing has struck back with a potentially more punitive tariff, as much as a 21% tax hike on U.S. car exports bound for China, the world’s largest auto market.
This week, the Chinese government upped the ante in the Obama-China trade dispute by surprisingly imposing new tariffs on imports of Honda and Cadillac models, Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee, the BMW X5 and X3 and Mercedes Benz models made in Michigan, Alabama and South Carolina. China argues that the U.S. provided illegal subsidies to these companies during the economic downturn in 2008 and is selling those vehicles cheaper in China than they are sold for in the U.S.
The U.S. exports around $92 billion worth of goods to China and cars account for around $4 billion of that. The tariffs, which range from just 2% to as much as 21.5% could impact $2.5 billion worth of American auto exports, according to preliminary estimates by the U.S-China Business Council, a Washington lobby.
…..Ever since the dawn of American civilization, man continues to wrap himself up in complexity. This behavior has all the earmarks of a subconscious death wish. Government writes legislation that is over 2,000 pages (i.e., Obama Care, Dodd-Frank Bill, etc.). In contrast, some of the largest novels ever written were only about 1,000 pages, single spaced. We have hundreds of bureaucracies, at all levels of government, writing hundreds, if not thousands of pages of rule, after rule, after rule ….. every day! The Constitution is only about 20 pages.
On the international front, we have entangled nation-to-nation Central Banks, the IMF, the WTO, NGO’s and thousands of treaties that further tie civilization up in knots. You can’t move sideways without running into a rule or a law, national or international. Most people are law breakers because of too many laws but they don’t even know it, much less care. These national and international entanglements are slowly obliterating American sovereignty and freedom, right under our noses…..
“If the Republican Presidential race were decided on intensity of support, Ron Paul would be the frontrunner” ~ Ron Paul And Libertarians Can’t Be Discounted – Forbes
If the Republican Presidential race were decided on intensity of support, Ron Paul would be the frontrunner. Of course it’s not, so Paul’s constant showing of about 10% in nearly every poll allows the political class to treat him as a fringe candidate.
Whether or not you agree with his libertarian doctrines, he deserves more regard because of the loyalty he draws from his supporters and the importance of their votes.
Handicappers will speculate on who will win Paul’s voters when he is forced to drop out. I don’t expect Paul to drop out, or for very many of his supporters to abandon him when the process comes down to the two-person race many anticipate between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain or Rick Perry. Instead, I could see Paul gaining support, especially if Cain’s candidacy is blown up by sexual harassment charges.
Paul is the hero of libertarian voters. He is a physician turned Constitutionalist politician. His first run for President was as a Libertarian in 1988, and ran as a Republican in 2008.
Paul has represented a district near Houston that includes Galveston for 12 terms, beginning in 1976 and including two separate breaks in service. He has said he will “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.
His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.
Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.
“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.
A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.
Full article here
With Greece on the precipice of default, and Portugal and Italy approaching the ledge, the European monetary union appears in peril.
Should it collapse, the European Union itself could be in danger, for economic nationalism is rising in Europe. Which raises a larger question.
Is the New World Order, the great 20th century project of Western transnational elites, unraveling?
The NWO dates back as far as Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, which a Republican Senate refused to enter. FDR, seeking to succeed where his mentor had failed, oversaw the creation of a United Nations, an International Monetary Fund and a World Bank.
In 1951 came the European Coal and Steel Community, love child of Jean Monnet, which evolved into the European Economic Community, the European Community and the European Union. A European Central Bank and a new currency, the euro, followed.
The hidden ultimate goal of economic union was political union — a United States of Europe as model and core of the 21st century world government.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the EU expanded to the east. And the New World Order, formally proclaimed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, was out in the open and seemingly the wave of the future.
Progress was swift.
A North American Free Trade Agreement, bringing the United States, Mexico and Canada into a common market that George W. Bush predicted would encompass the hemisphere from Patagonia to Prudhoe Bay, was signed in 1993.
A World Trade Organization was born in 1994. U.S. sovereignty was surrendered to a global body where America had the same single vote as Azerbaijan.
The Kyoto Protocol, brought home by Vice President Al Gore, set up a regime to control the worldwide emission of greenhouse gases.
An International Criminal Court, a permanent Nuremberg Tribunal to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity, was created.
A doctrine of limited sovereignty had been asserted. Elites claimed a higher law than national sovereignty, “a responsibility to protect,” enabled them to intervene in countries where human rights violations were egregious.
Serbia, bombed by Bill Clinton for 78 days for fighting to hold its ancient province of Kosovo, was the first victim.
Suddenly, however, the progression has stalled. Indeed, the New World Order seems to be unraveling.
Emerging powers like China, India and Brazil are demanding they be exempt from restrictions that developed countries seek to impose. The follow-up summits to Kyoto — Copenhagen in 2009, Cancun in 2010 — ended in failure. The Doha round of world trade negotiations ended in failure.
China refuses to let her currency float lest she lose the trade surpluses that have enabled her to amass $3 trillion in cash reserves.
Protectionism is rising. Americans chaff at a new world economic order that has led to deindustrialization of their country. Congress is talking of defunding the U.N. as anti-Western and anti-Israel.
Why is the New World Order suddenly going in reverse?
A primary reason is the resurgence of nationalism. Nations are putting national interests ahead of any perceived global interests.
A second reason is the decline of a West whose project this was. We no longer dictate to the world, and the world no longer marches to our tune. The deficits and indebtedness of Western nations preclude more of the big wealth transfers in foreign aid that once bought us influence.
A third reason is demography. Not one European nation has a birth rate sufficient to replace its population. Europe’s nations are aging, shrinking, dying. A depopulating Germany cannot carry forever the deficit-debtor nations of Club Med. The oldest nation, Japan, is on schedule to lose 25 million people by 2050, as is neighbor Russia.
Militarily, America remains the most powerful nation. But Iraq and Afghanistan have bled the country and left us without the certain attainment of our goals. Old allies like Turkey go their separate ways.
Ethno-nationalism also explains a disintegrating world order. Aspiring nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Padania, Flanders, Ingushetia, Dagestan, East Turkestan, Kurdistan and Baluchistan seek a place in the sun, free of the cloying embrace of the mother country.
The desire of peoples for nations all their own, where their own language, faith and culture predominate and their own kind rule to the exclusion of all others, is everywhere winning out over multiculturalism and transnationalism.
Through history there have been attempts to unite the world.
The Roman Empire. Catholicism. Islam. The West that ruled much of mankind from Columbus to the mid-20th century. Communism, which conquered half of Europe and Asia but arose and fell in a single century.
With the death of communism and the decline of the West — in relative population and power — Islam has become the largest religion, China the world’s emerging superpower, and Asia the continent of the future.
Could this still be the Second American Century?
Not the way we are going.
At first glance, the latest protests staged by left-wing rent-a-mobs in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and elsewhere don’t look terribly different from the World Trade Organization and global debt-amnesty spectaculars of a decade ago. Radicals swarm against some hated totem, chant, break a few Starbucks windows and leave scads of garbage for someone else to clean up.
But the “Occupy Wall Street” mob that shut down the Brooklyn Bridge last weekend and drew 700 arrests bears all the earmarks of a professional political machine effort to keep Obama in the White House.
This time, banks were the target, as mobs bore down on Wall Street and posted demands on their Twitter feed to tax and arrest bankers. They knew a soft spot when they saw one.
Polls show the public continues to blame banks instead of administration policies for the economic downturn and widespread joblessness. Singling out banks is a tactic torn right from the playbook of Obama’s political mentor, Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky.
“The goal,” wrote David Horowitz‘s DiscoverTheNetworks.com of Alinsky, “is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and unworthy of salvation.”
“The key to radical social change,” wrote Stanley Kurtz in his Alinsky biography “Radical-in-Chief,” “was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com …
Coup d’état – The Historical Framework of Globalization
By Dr. James Polk
Global Research, December 29, 2010
Our era is largely defined by two highly interlinked concepts: globalization and the so-called “war on terrorism.” As geopolitical-economic operatives, both concepts complement each other as significant means to specific ends; both shape important aspects of our daily lives and determine form and content of much that passes for public discourse. Particularly in Europe and in the United States, populations are kept vigilant to the “clear and present dangers” ostensibly posed by “international terrorism” through mnemonic icons of troop movements in Central Asia and/or strategically deployed bomb plots that are purportedly thwarted “just in time” by our intelligence services. As if copied from the lecture notes of Carl Schmitt, a totalitarian “enemy” has been constructed which can conveniently be called back into service at a moment’s notice should public memory begin to fade.
Globalization has proceeded by means of three distinct but clearly interwoven interpretations and representations of the world in toto: as the sociopolitical “cosmopolitan moment”  (to borrow a term coined by Seyla Benhabib) of the globe as the embodiment of our lifeworld; as the stage of operations for multinational corporate/financial interests; and as the battlefield on which incited conflicts are seen as requiring comprehensive, global solutions which are to be achieved through a New World Order. In its current development, the construct of a unified world is largely synonymous with the ideal world government as envisioned in the Sociocracy of French philosopher Auguste Comte in the 19th century , in which international bankers and elitest think tanks determine and execute public policies.
Devvy’s Email Alerts: “I have taken a lot of heat, ugly emails and charges of bigotry because I do not believe Islam is a religion. Many more have come to the same conclusion after researching the issue.”
The items below are at www.devvy.com
I hope you can take the time to read them. While the two parties continue to bicker about “creating jobs,” nothing is being created except more misery for Americans. We have to keep the pressure on to get out of those destructive treaties discussed below. We have to regain our full sovereignty and that includes getting US out of the communist UN.
I have taken a lot of heat, ugly emails and charges of bigotry because I do not believe Islam is a religion. Many more have come to the same conclusion after researching the issue.
Demoting Islam’s Religion Status
The Outlaw Congress refuses to get US out of NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT/WTO, which would bring home millions of jobs and revitalize our three most important job sectors: manufacturing, industrial and agriculture.
This is also a serious national security issue. Demand passage of H.R. 4759 to get the U.S. out of NAFTA (No American Factories Taking Applications). It’s been rotting in the House since March 2010.