Obama wants the Rich and the Poor to Fight amongst Themselves

‘Divide and conquer’ seems to be the way to go for a president that, in just one term, has managed to fail on everything.

NationalJournal.com
June 29, 2011

Kids versus corporate jets.

If President Obama’s news conference accomplished anything on Wednesday afternoon, it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.

  • Rich versus Poor.
  • Us versus Them.
  • Those who support children, food safety, medical research and, presumably, puppies and apple pie versus the rich fat cats who don’t.

In Obama’s world, Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for corporate jets. That is a sharp distinction that could help put the GOP on defensive, but it may not be enough to persuade Republicans to change their posture on the debt-ceiling talks.

The deceiver in chief will blame everyone else before assuming responsibility himself. -The Real Agenda

Republicans have cast Obama as a tax-raiser and a Big-Government spender. This was his jujitsu move to turn their arguments against them. With a hint of disdain, Obama even dredged up the death of Osama bin Laden to score a political point.

“I’ve been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis,” Obama said, jabbing Congress for being out of session so much. “You stay here. Let’s get it done.”

(WATCH: Obama’s Frustration with Congress on Display at Press Conference)

In his first full-scale news conference since March, the president insisted that Democrats had compromised in private talks by agreeing to billions of dollars in budget cuts that would hurt their voters. But, he said, Republicans were refusing to bend by not agreeing to eliminate tax breaks to owners of corporate jets and profit-rich oil companies. If Republicans get their way, Obama said, the end result would be unbalanced deal that lifts the debt limit but forces the government to make deeper-than-necessary cuts.

“If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships,” Obama said. “[It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I’ve said to Republican leaders, ‘You go talk to your constituents and ask them, “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?” ‘ ”

Just in case any viewer missed his class-clashing message, Obama referred to corporate-jet owners at least three more times before he took his second question.

This was not the first time Obama has spoken in grim terms about the consequences of cutting too deeply in order to strike a bargain that wins enough votes to raise the debt ceiling. But his rhetoric was sharper, even harsher, than in the past — and it threatens to anger Republican leaders just as he’s supposedly reaching out to them in compromise.

(RELATED: Obama Comes Close to Endorsing Gay Marriage)

Obama is gambling that public pressure will force Republicans to bow to his demand. But Republicans face pressures of their own; the influential tea party movement won’t accept any tax increases and wants draconian budget cuts. Obama’s rhetoric may only back them into a corner.

Normally, the constitutionally pragmatic Obama seeks a middle road in his rhetoric, keeping his options open and burnishing his image as somebody always willing to find a bipartisan solution. Look at his response in the same news conference to a New York law allowing for gay marriages. With liberal activists demanding that he support the measure and make gay marriage a cause of his presidency, Obama demurred. It’s a states-rights issue, he said.

“Each community is going to be different,” Obama said. “Each state is going to be different.”

Obama and GOP leaders in Washington must soon come to grips with the fact that the nation’s sluggish economy will almost certainly take a major hit if Congress doesn’t soon increase the amount of money the U.S. can borrow. Raising the debt limit was once a routine affair, but it’s been caught in the increasingly partisan Washington maw. Republicans are demanding steep budget cuts and no tax increases as the price for a few votes in favor of raising the limit. Obama hopes to save face, as well as some government programs.

“The question now is, are we going to step up and get this done?” Obama said. He knows the answer is yes, and the only question is how.

“Call me naive,” Obama said, “but my expectation is leaders are going to lead.” Obama is naive only if he thinks a single news conference is going to change the political paradigm.

 

North American Union 101

Call it What You Want. If Everything Goes Business as Usual, Mexico, Canada and the United States Will Become One

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

Rome was not built in one day. In order to become the Empire it was, Rome went through years and years of progress until it becamNAUe the structure we know today. Democracy did not appear one morning with the rise of the sun.  The United States was not founded over a summer to become what it is today; it took a civil war to produce independence from Britain, an anti-slavery movement, a period of reconstruction and industrialization and two world wars. Local, National and Global structures of power are created one block at the time. The latest example of a superstructure in its works is the North American Union.

Known also by its NAU abbreviation, this new power structure emulates in many regards the European Union, EU, which came about as an economical organization, which sought to facilitate the trade between countries in the old continent. One thing the two structures have in common is its supranational nature, that is, its authority goes beyond the power of any of its member-partner governments. Just as its European equal, the North American Union and its roots were planted by non-governmental institutions, mainly the Council in Foreign Relations or CFR a branch of a globalist movement that seeks to unify the world under a one-world government. In Europe, the main contributors to the creation of the EU were the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament, all of which represented no government in particular, but which represented the interests of national and regional corporations.
The European Union is today one single market with a common trade and political policy. It introduced a single currency, the euro, adopted by 13 member states. The EU initiated a limited Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters. Another feature the EU and the NAU have in common is that those who are put in power are not elected by the people in every nation member, precisely because when a country is admitted into the EU, that nation ceases to exist. Everything from the security to the economy, to the politics, to the management of welfare and the military is then directed by unelected persons who raise to power once a country’s president or prime minister signs what in North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP. Once the SPP is signed, most laws that previously governed such a country go into retirement, and the newly unelected parliament begins their never-ending governance.

Another similarity between the EU and NAU, is the authorization to let in millions of foreigners who are free to move within the borders of the union to live and work with zero restrictions. The newest push by the United States president and most congressmen to allow between 12 and 30 million illegal immigrants to remain in the United States soil regardless of their violations of immigration laws, is a clear sign, critics say, that there is a path being paved to lure people into coming to North America. The newest bill, which apparently counts with the blessing of George W. Bush, includes a renewable Z VISA, which will permit illegals to remain in the country for 4 years in a row. During that period, illegals will pay around $5,000 in fees and penalties, which will enable them to apply for a Green Card. At some point in the process, the head of the household, the bill says, will have to leave the United States to his country of origin in order to obtain a legal admittance into the US. Although most parts of the bill are kept secret by its writers and most congressmen, it’s been reported that the bill will allow illegals to bring into the US up to eleven relatives after the former obtain their green cards. This will not only make the immigration problem more serious, but also will turn the immigration debate more sour, because the bill does not account for how the country or the work market will cope with the increase in the population this measure will spur.

“The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambitions to the European Union.” So, whom are the ones pushing for the North American Union in the United States? Well, for starters Mr. Robert Pastor, from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who said in the journal of the CFR: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.” Then, there is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor who in 1995 said, “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…the precondition for eventual globalization is progressive regionalization.” Last but not least, Mr. David Rockefeller, who said in his memoirs, “…Some believe we are part of a global cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure- one world. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

In March, 2005, president Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Martin and former Mexican president Vicente Fox signed the SPP, which again was written by Robert Pastor and other members of the CFR, who met with its Mexican and Canadian colleagues before the trilateral meeting featuring the three heads of state. The goal in that meeting was to create and establish a North American Community by 2010. Although Robert Pastor maintains the intention of the CFR is not to create anything like to European Union, the truth is that in its early stages the SPP look just like the plan the EU had when it was in its beginnings. First, it was shown as an economical alliance, to facilitate the circulation of goods from country to country and to find common ground on economic and trade policies. But the EU soon turned into a continental body that evolved into political unions. In 2005, after Bush signed the SPP, a proto-parliament called the North American Competitiveness Council was created, a prototype for what in Europe is today the European Parliament. The highlight of this section is that in the event a severe state of emergency hits the region, the SPP has plans for a continuity of government, which many call a shadow government.

The NAFTA Highways
But in order for a North American block to prosper, there is more that needs to happen. In order to open the borders, immigration laws need to change. A new transportation system needs to be constructed. Once trade limits are set aside, the path seems to point to a free circulation of products from Mexico into the US and to Canada. The North American Free Trade Agreement signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, opened the door for massive exchange of goods across the borders of Mexico, the United States and Canada. In order to have that massive movement of people and products a new highway system which will connect the three countries. The NAFTA highways will begin down on the border between Mexico and the US and spread to Florida, New York, Toronto, Oklahoma, Calgary and Vancouver. All in all, there will be four sections: an Atlantic, Pacific, Central Eastern and Central Western corridors. All this is possible due to the massive sell of local and regional highway systems to international corporations such as Spain’s Cintra and Zachry Construction. The lobbying of banks like Goldman Sachs and other companies like Merryl Lynch in Washington and the poor management of resources at the state level have sparked the sell of Parkways, Turnpikes and other highway systems which were built with taxpayers’ money and that now, opposing groups say, it being handed to foreigners for periods as long as 99 years.

The Amero
So, once there is a common government, a common trade policy and a common transportation system, there are two more things needed to complete the picture, one is a common currency and another is a regional database. According to Professor and Journalist, Jerome Corsi, one of the key issues is the use of a regional currency. “Robert Pastor has also called for the creation of the “Amero” that would replace the US Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso”, says Corsi. “This follows in virtual lock step with what the European Union has accomplished for the once-totally independent nations across the Atlantic. Most of them have discarded their own currencies in favor of the Euro.” Either due to currency devaluation or the push of the CFR for the Amero, it is clear that the fact the United States is part of this regional body and that the government borrows 3 billion dollars a day to maintain its operations, will eventually erode the dollar as a currency. Another thing that would precipitate the fall of the dollar and the rise of the Amero is the fact that China holds most of the US debt, which puts in their hands the future of the dollar as a currency. If China decides to dump the dollar as their trade currency and go for the Euro or the Pound, the United States will suffer an economic catastrophe much worse than that suffered during the depression of 1929. A devalued currency and a week economy, says Corsi, would open the doors for a new currency, the Amero.

The RFID
So where does the Radio Frequency Identification system fall into place? Questioned by pro-privacy groups as the greatest violation yet to the citizens private lives, the RFID appears as the best instrument to control the influx of dangerous individuals and to know everything about who enters the country, their origin and destination. In a world tainted by terrorism, it seems like a good idea to know who is here and why, the problem is that it will not only affect immigrants or tourists who come to the US or the North American Union for that matter. Every American citizen will be mandated to carry one of these ID’s as well. Although it was first promoted as a way to prevent the spread of animal disease from getting into the food chain, it soon turned into a tool to control the free movement of individuals across the region. The National Security theme doesn’t seem to be flying well among the population. Several states around the country have formally filed requests to reject the National ID Act, while some states have already totally rejected it. According to critics, the National RFID is an ineffective solution to a problem that can be addressed in less intrusive ways. In practice, it has been demonstrated that hackers can drain information from an RFID card from 160 feet away. Because the information on the ID is biometric the information could be stolen or changed. The ID system would track the card, not the person. What the ID will do it seems, is to create barriers as to where people can go. Those who do not hold an RFID will not be permitted to board planes, enter public buildings or banks, or to collect social security benefits. Organizations like the Liberty Coalition make clear that the RFID is the precursor for what is to come; the implantation of a chip under people’s skins as a way to avoid and end the tampering the RFID will be subject to. The implanted chip says the Liberty Coalition in a recent newsletter is what they are really after. In fact, hospitals and clinics around the country already use chips to store medical information, which is then retrieved with a scanner. Institutions like the Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack New Jersey, already offers this possibility to its clients.

The United Nations
In its official charter, the United Nations makes it clear, that its main function is to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification. It also says in article 28 that the Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. In article 29, itsays the Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs, as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. In article 30, it says the Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President. Probably the most controversial of the articles is where it establishes that, permanent members form the Security Council with the right to vote and veto. The members of that Council are The Communist Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The rest of the members are non-permanent and are elected to sit for periods of two years. Note that two of the permanent members are the USSR, which hasn’t been changed to Russia, and China, communism’s last standing. This fact is of great concern for those who see the United Nations as the precursor for a one-world government due what they call dictatorial rules and regulations. The link between the UN and the EU and the NAU is that these blocks are also previews of what will become a global regulator organ. It seems the North American Union is another step towards formalizing this initiative. In fact the very United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its article 28 says: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” Do critics have a point? Later, on Article 29 section 3, it says: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Article 30 and last says: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. So in other words, taking into consideration the last three articles of the Declaration of Human Rights, anyone has the right to a social and international order. No one can use the rights given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if they are considered to be exercised against the UN and no one can act in orderto overcome the UN as a governing body. Since this is a news piece, I let you draw your own conclusions.

Reference Material:

United Nations Reference Manuals.

United Nations Charter.

The New American Magazine.

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

www.JonesReport.com

Lou Dobbs Tonight Transcripts

www.spp.gov