Quote:

When they* were operating in secrecy they couldn't lose. They've been identified and are being watched. Freedom to operate is increasingly limited, and their repertoire of shenanigans have been well described and cataloged. They know their agenda has to be rushed, it's now or never. They've seen the popularity of anti NWO in the young generation taking root and are afraid.

Disagree.

They publish meeting locations beforehand, arrive singularly in normal bulletproof limos, meet in public hotels/resorts/buildings. They're not afraid of anything. They know nobody will act. Hell, nobody has acted against any US pol and your pols have buried you in **** up to your neck.

Even the Greek people have been remarkably civil over their haircuts. Sure, a little rioting but it calms down and then it's business as usual. Have the eqyptians rounded up all the ****s that colluded with mubarek and put their heads on pikes to deter others? Nope. Even the Irish, famous for retaliation against oppressors have bent over and just made little girl grunts as they're getting ass*****d.

AFAIK not a single banker or pol has been injured, much less killed worldwide.

The peoples' will to rebel is gone. Your best resides with the people you hate the most. The FSA is the only real force that will emerge to do battle with Uncle Fraud when he removes the cheese. They may be lazy but they're street smart. They'll put up such a fuss that Uncle Cheese will have to cater to them or risk real, serious rioting that will make Watts look like a picnic.

Maybe, just maybe the remaining sheeple will throw in with the FSA to get theirs if things are bad enough.

Therein lies the rub. What constitutes bad enough?

Guess I'm done posting for the day. Limited posting isn't how you grow your membership.

Only those with nothing will engage in battle.

Quote:

I would think that a US-Canada customs union would be highly disruptive to Canada with their very high GST/HST/whatever they call it now.

Which is why the USA will also introduce a federal sales tax/VAT.

I was in college in 1990. I kept hearing about "New World Order" conspiracy and a global government, mostly by biblical people. And soon enough, I took a class in International Relations and the professor was talking about how we would eventually have a global government and he was very much promoting it as a good idea. On his reading list of items was Foreign Affairs Magazine put out by the Council on Foreign Relations.

That's when I came across an article from Richard N Gardner in Foreign Affairs entitled "The Hard Road to World Order." The title caught my attention because of all the rumors I was hearing. Since the internet has come about since then, that article has become quoted quite frequently as proof of at least a policy towards the end goal of world government. The article:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2....

A quote from the article that's all over the place:

"In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

In short, the article talks about creating trade agreements and economic arrangements to create interdependence amongst nations to erode sovereignty, ie, NAFTA, WTO, etc... Obviously, the first step is super regional states and the final step is global governance. The article was written in the early 1970's.

Most everything else I read in Foreign Affairs magazine was focused on current events but there were quite a few other articles centered on eventual world government subject matter.

Regardless, what conspiracy theorists says is true about the Council on Foreign Relations. That is one of their goals.

Needless to say, I was fighting NAFTA pretty hard when it came up a few years later. I was telling people it was a move toward a global government. I was dismissed as a whacko. So be it. It's much easier these days to talk about this stuff than it was in the 90's. The internet changed so many things, but as Landshark said, the information was out there long before internet browsers came around.

The problem with today's conspiracy people is that they go so overboard with crap they can't prove or stuff that is just down right ridiculous. Alex Jones is a perfect example. He'll give you information and 70% of it will be spot on and the other 30% will just be absolutely nutso, unverifiable garbage. If three of the 10 things they give you are absolute crap, you tend not to pay attention to them anymore. You just have to filter through what's real and what's not and put up with the noise.

To be honest, I don't pay that much attention to this stuff anymore. Well, not as much I once did. I definitely don't pay attention to AJ unless something pops up here on TF about him.

Anything you read or hear, just verify it for yourself and ignore the noise. Sometimes, people who have lost all credibility have good information. But most things can be vetted rather easily these days. Hell, you get online and in just a few minutes, you can get an answer. No effort at all... Back in my early days, you had to go out and find an old bookstore and look for information that you may not find until months later. OH, THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!

People are pretty lazy today.

Quote:

Alex Jones is a perfect example. He'll give you information and 70% of it will be spot on and the other 30% will just be absolutely nutso,

Yup. I'd put it at about 60% sourced and documented and 40% either exaggerated or just made up.

I still listen to him sometimes because the nuggets of truth are in there if you know how to critically discern the **** from the good stuff.

When we are all talking about Alex Jones being 60-70% correct, it is clear we are totally f-cked.

This all makes sense, when the entire system is about to collapse, consolidate, rinse, and repeat. If this happens, what is happening in Greece will commence in the US and likely lead to.....use your imagination.

Please bring over "Riot Dog" x a million:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HPb46aK7....

You pretty much have to look up every story Alex covers and do the fact checking for yourself if you want to listen to him and make that time spent listening to be useful. I do that. Much of what he says is completely exaggerated (he will take 100 or 1000 times and turn it into 1,000,000 times, for example) or is based on sources which are complete hearsay in one person's blog but presented as unquestionable fact.

But that's just 40%. The other 60% which are mostly government or NGO documents, are so damning that it would make the populace revolt in a day if we weren't all drugged up on psychotropics and American Idol.

Jones is establishment designed to ruin the credibility of former professionals, IMO. His guests could chose any other venue. Then again, some people say Max Keiser is nuts, too.

Alex does have some very odd stances on some key topics. Mainly Israel where he is a blind defender, but he's opened up and said more about that in the past year.

These odd stances of his are not objective. I saw him at a local rally where he bullhorned over other local activists protesting the APD when APD shut down a local gun show.

I still hear news on his show that I don't hear anywhere else, which is why I still listen. And he has had pretty much every person of interest on his show so far that we discuss (Celente, Keiser, Marc Faber, etc), except Karl and Steph. The funny thing is, Alex will reference tons of different alternative news sources (including ZeroHedge) who use Karl's ideas, but never has he mentioned Karl and his Tickers on air.

Alex also has never given credit for the founding of the Tea Party to Steph and Karl. He constantly attributes it to Ron Paul supporters, which is total horse ****. He must know about Karl and Steph as he cites Wikipedia so much. But NEVER a reference to them as far as founding the tea party.

So make sure to use your critical thinking cap when listening to him. Double check everything.

In Amerika, Riot Dog is shot by a JBT. Then Riot Dog's owner is given a citation for lack of control of said dog.

DID SOMEONE SAY RIOT DOG!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s....

Sorry, I just love Riot Dog in Greece. If I could find him, I'd stud him out and make a new breed.

On the internet, when you say "Riot Dog", it's this guy from Greece. He's famous already.

Taking this one step further ...

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/....

Quote:

Sept. 2009 ... Barack Obama is set to become the first-ever U.S. president to chair the United Nations' 15-member Security Council when it meets later this month.

and ...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilega....

Quote:

Does Barack Obama dream of becoming UN Secretary General?
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: September 22nd, 2010

Since taking office, the only occasions when Barack Obama has appeared really enthusiastic when delivering speeches has been when he’s addressed foreign audiences, and especially when he’s apologised for his own country or undercut the idea of American greatness.

Perhaps the best example was his speech in September 2009 to the UN General Assembly, where he was really in his element. The speech was rapturously received by his international audience, even though it was probably his worst address as president from a US national interest point of view. In his speech, the president threw out decades of conventional wisdom in US foreign policy, rejected the idea of America as a unique force for good, and questioned traditional alliances:

"In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War."

President Obama seems increasingly uncomfortable in domestic US settings, but highly energised when speaking abroad, especially to audiences that are traditionally anti-American. Which is why, if he loses in 2012, which is now increasingly likely, he might see the position of UN Secretary General as a natural fit.

Barack Obama is probably enamoured with the idea of being at the helm of a big supranational institution, and may even see it as a bigger stage than the US presidency. After all, he cares little for American exceptionalism, is happy to weaken American sovereignty, frequently humiliates his country before foreign audiences, and is a big admirer of the United Nations.

If Obama exits the White House in 2012, he will be just 51, with potentially another two to three decades of politically active public life ahead of him. In addition to writing a further chapter of his memoirs, he will undoubtedly be looking for another prestigious post, particularly on the international stage.

President Obama could in theory become Secretary General Obama, with adoring audiences at his feet at the United Nations. The adulation he no longer receives in the United States could be his for the taking at the UN.

The current Secretary General's 5-year term is up December 31, 2011. There are no term limits for this position.

Quote:

Does Barack Obama dream of becoming UN Secretary General?

King! Supreme ruler!

Quote:

... adoring audiences at his feet at the United Nations.

RE: United Nations

I don't think this is off the mark. The UN is a structure that the President adores. We may see it as flaccid, but I'm sure he has thought about how it could be the foundation of his greater goal. So he gets 5 more years to weaken America on the world stage, then when Ban K Moon's 2nd term is up circa 2016, he can step right in to be Secty Gen. of the UN. American's can't hold the post of Secty Gen of the UN...but someone from Kenya could!

Showhoss: Hahah, now that would be wild.

Jotapay wrote..

Alex also has never given credit for the founding of the Tea Party to Steph and Karl. He constantly attributes it to Ron Paul supporters, which is total horse ****. He must know about Karl and Steph as he cites Wikipedia so much. But NEVER a reference to them as far as founding the tea party.

Well, Alex is referring to the Tea Party "money bomb" Ron Paul supporters had on December 17th, 2007 which was before Karl and Steph's Tea Party event on February 1st, 2009. I'm not making an argument either way, but I wouldn't call Alex's claim "horse ****".

Quote:

Well, Alex is referring to the Tea Party "money bomb" Ron Paul supporters had on December 17th, 2007

No he's not. He said: "The Tea Party was started by Ron Paul supporters." The current, actual Tea Party was mobilized and begun by a single post in the Fed Up forums. It's in Wikipedia, they acknowledge that was the beginning of what you see today. Everything you see today is culminated from that one post.


Ron Paul's money bomb has nothing to do with the current Tea Party. They are similar in name only.

LOL at Erin Burnett and Angelina Jolie being frontpage notable members on the CFR website.

Is this the currency?

http://rangerider.blogspot.com/p/rose-cr....

Quote:

America is not complete, and will not be complete, cannot be complete, until Mexico is again part of America as she was in the long ago, and when Mexico is once again a part of the United States, then will the cap-stone have been set on the Pyramid and the reverse side of the United States seal will be cut.

The big question is why?. Some economist at CFR said it would be a good idea is kind of a s***ty answer.

This is why when you guys paint everything all black and white with China, Russia, Libya, etc. I get a little irate. Peaceful competition among nations is always beneficial. After all,the cold war did its part to keep the NWO contained as well as containing the Soviets.

Bez

Quote:

Well, gee, I guess it's all a good idea...as long as Quebec doesn't object to speaking Spanish

That's a good one!! Why would Canada want us in the first place? It seems they have a stable system in place and don't need us to **** it up.

Apparently you've not heard of their healthcare system.

Stable.

Ha.

Quote:

Apparently you've not heard of their healthcare system

Yes I have but I never said their system was perfect and I was really talking about their banking system.

I continue to wonder if my perception of impending doom increases with my aging, as if the mind seeks causes to rationalize the inevitable.

That said, I was a good bit younger when I decided to move out here into the sticks.

I don't know why you're all worried. You never had a United States of America to begin with.

Just google "united states corporation"

Here's a website that I had in my bookmarks but by all means not the only one

http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is....

Happy researching

**** that. Canadians will redo 1812 before that **** happens. Celucci was a ****tard. This cable just proves it.

NA trade freedom, labour mobility, military and environmental alliances, and energy security are negotiable. Currency and sovereignty are not.

Quote:

Well, Alex is referring to the Tea Party "money bomb" Ron Paul supporters had on December 17th, 2007 which was before Karl and Steph's Tea Party event on February 1st, 2009. I'm not making an argument either way, but I wouldn't call Alex's claim "horse ****".

I remember a Ron Paul money bomb on Dec. 17 2007, I don't remember any "Tea Party money bomb" on that date. Sounds revisionary to me, but I could be wrong. I'm sure there was a general 'tea party' theme or tone was embedded in the event. Karl and Steph were the first persons I came across formally urging people to send tea bags to congress as a protest.

Quote:

Apparently you've not heard of their healthcare system. Stable. Ha.

It will be as soon as we go in this direction:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Zurich+....