Barack Obama says he was all for World War II:
I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
He doesn’t oppose all wars- just dumb Bush wars:
I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.
And he is opposed to wars which distract us from our terrible economy:
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
And he is opposed to a war in which there is no threat to the United States, because that would be a dumb war:
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
And we should fight with those who oppress their people- like the Saudi’s
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
Here’s Barack Obama making sure the Saudis don’t oppress their own people.
Barack Obama has done nothing to stop the Saudis from oppressing their own people but Barack Obama said we should fight them to stop the oppression.
Both Curt and I have observed how eerily similar Obama’s actions recent actions are to those just prior to the Iraq war. Now so has Drudge:
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…
The actions taken by Obama represent a complete reversal of his own administration. Not long ago the establishment of a no-fly zone was called “loose talk” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The Secretary of State said that the US was “a long way from making that decision.” In fact, Gates said, the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya would constitute “an act of war.”
“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya.”
Now I know for a fact that Congress has not authorized this action by the US military. I also know how someone else named Barack Obama opposed any such action:
Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
So Barack Obama said that Barack Obama does not have the authority to initiate the military action that Barack Obama just ordered and Barack Obama is in violation of the legislation proposed by Barack Obama.
If you really want to read the words of a miserable lying hypocrite- just read the entire article at the link. For example:
Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional?
A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points:
* The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
* Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
* The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
* The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
Barack Obama has ordered military trials to continue at Gitmo, but Barack Obama said they were unlawful.
But that’s for another post.
And please remember Obama’s words here:
A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.
Facts.
Until Barack Obama became President, the media increasingly took to describing the Iraqi conflict as a “civil war.”
In 2006 the Alternet outright called Iraq a civil war and argued that its being a civil war was a reason to get out.
James Joyner said that you can’t win with civil wars.
Dick Durbin said We cannot police a civil war.
In The Democratic Strategist it is recommended that one way for Democrats to argue and win a debate about Iraq is to maintain that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and we not stay involved.
Libya is in the midst of a civil war.
“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power” said Barack Obama but Barack Obama said Gaddafi must leave Libya.
In Cairo in 2009 Barack Obama said
So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
Barack Obama also said
“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power.
The Obama sops at Politico said there was something behind these bombings;
Then there’s the feasibility of the larger underlying mission — ousting Qadhafi through the destruction of his military infrastructure, a kind of regime change on the cheap.
“The use-of-force resolution is focused on protecting civilians, not removing Qadhafi from power … but everything else we’re doing is aimed at pressuring him to give up power,” said a senior administration official.
So Barack Obama said that change in Libya will not be imposed by the United States or any foreign power but Barack Obama is using the US and foreign power to impose change in Libya.
In the Libyan civil war, rebels have engaged Gaddafi in an armed insurrection. It is NOT the peaceful protest Barack Obama has repeatedly described.
“The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable, so are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters,” Obama said in his first televised remarks on the situation in Libya. “These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.”
Obama has not once properly described the civil war sparked by armed rebels.
President Obama says it is imperative that the world speak “with one voice” to condemn the suppression of peaceful demonstrators in Libya and to support their universal rights, and adds that the administration is preparing “a full range of options” that the United States can take unilaterally and multilaterally in response to the ongoing violence.
He keeps calling them “protesters” and “demonstrators.” They are armed revolutionaries.
One need not go back very long in time to see Barack Obama feel differently:
When President George Bush said
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
Candidate Barack Obama said Bush was wrong and “dumb” to get into a war over that.
Now President Obama says of Gaddafi:
For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.
Surely candidate Obama would find this wrong and dumb to get into a war over.
President Barack Obama has committed an act of war against Libya without the permission of Congress. There is no imminent threat to the US from Libya. President Obama has repeatedly lied about situation in Libya. It has to be about oil, right?
Barack Obama the candidate would demand impeachment of Barack Obama the President.
See author page
See, this is perfect.
So many useful soundbites.
I hope the political ads against Obama (IF he runs for re-election) use all of them.
Obama is a Liar! Impeach the Impostor !
So the con artist that now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, doesn’t live up to his own standards. Is anyone really surprised? And has anyone noticed how Obama usually dumps information on a Friday when he is out of the reach of the American press?
Now, can anyone tell me why he is in Brazil complimenting the Brazilians on their aggressive drilling plans? Could it have anything to do with the fact that GulfNews.com reported in August, 2008 that Obama’s good buddy, and sugar daddy, purchased $811 million worth of Petrobas or that when Soros purchased all that stock in Petrobas, he paid $64.83 per share and has taken a 40% hit since Petrobas closed at $38.87 Friday?
Our biggest suppliers of crude is Canada, first, then Mexico. Brazil is waaaaaay down on the list, but yet, we (the taxpayers) are dumpin $$ billions into Brazil’s drilling. Is Obama hoping to make a tony little profit for Soros, who in turn, will dump millions via PACs into Obama’s campaign coffers?
Obama cannot be trusted. He does nothing that benefits this nation. Just a look at how he is preventing us from getting our own oil, while telling Brazil how thrilled we will be to buy theirs, should be your first clue.
Yep, he does not have the authority.
But… it is about oil, just look at the other thread from its 3AM.
@blast:
How does Obama have the authority to bomb Libya without any resolution from the Congress (you know, like the Authority to Use Military Force In Iraq bill)? Are you saying that the Constitutional scholar was wrong about Bush, buy hey, now he knows better so he can do whatever the hell he wants?
And just how much oil does Libya export into the U.S. If it’s all about oil, shouldn’t we be bombing Canada and Mexico?
But things are looking up; the American taxpayer is investing in Petrobas, George Soros is going to see the 40% loss from his $811 million investment recouped, Soros is going to donate millions to Obama’s campaign coffers, we will be fighting a war in THREE Islamic nations. What could go wrong?
Thank you for providing all of us some excellent flip-flop positioning of Obama. Linked back to your article.
Barry’s buddies in Iran and the muslim brotherhood were being defeated. What did you expect him to do?
@retire05,
My comment was that Obama does not have the authority, and I will avoid providing my opinion about Bush…
(oh… it takes more than a resolution, the Constitution requires a declaration of war)
As so far as oil goes, Mr Irons (and others) burned me on another thread saying it was about oil. Check it out…
http://floppingaces.net/2011/03/19/its-3-a-m-do-you-know-where-your-president-is-reader-post/
Dr J- Do you think he uses tendorizer on his shoes?
Great article, Dr John. Reminds me of a post I did on Obama back in July of 2009. I called it Obama vs. Obama and highlighted the myriad positions he took on the stimulus bill.
Obama vs. Obama
An ideology is not a moral compass; he has become a man walking a long razor blade in his bare feet, he makes mistakes with every step, he has already walked over half way and it is too late to turn back.
The ineptness and incompetence is humorous, except that American service men are putting their lives on the line. Then the fact that we have allowed this to transpire becomes a sublime theater of the absurd and we bear the brunt of the joke, because he has made us the joke.
It was old Skook who said a week or two ago, that he would engage us in another war to help insure his reelection. Wartime presidents win reelection. If this one dies of a lack of interest, there are several more potentials that he can take on for dubious reasons.
two very interesting pictures on this page. barry soetoro is genuflecting, not bowing to the Saudi Arabian what-ever-he-is. note the right knee is partially bent at the knee. tells me a lot about his allegiances. also, barry soetoro is grasping quadafi’s hand in a two handed supplication hand shake, declaring his allegiance to this guy, too. what we have here is a muslim/communist/christian hating individual who just happens to be the faux president of the United States of America. he is the great pretender to the throne, if you like but, for him, and where he came from (dysfunctiona family life extraordinaire) he has learned that those who are against him are the enemy and if you’re a christian, you fall into the category. he needs to be impeached, for sedition and treason and the sooner the better. I believe he has logged more hours in AF #1 than any of his predecessors but, what the hell it’s only because he deserves it. this individual is totally void of anything resembling intestinal fortitude.
And may I repeat- Obama once said that genocide was not a good enough reason for US involvement:
But now it is?
What a stinking hypocrite. But I repeat myself.
@anticsrocks: Picking up a pattern, eh? 😉
For Obama not to be a hypocrite he MUST take full responsibility for the ”Obama Abu Ghraib” story that is breaking this week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians
Twelve men are on trial in Seattle for going rogue and “staging” fake enemy attacks in order to justify attacking Afghani civilians.
Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder.
All of the soldiers have denied the charges.
They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted.
The claim was made that Abu Ghraib was chargeable straight up to include Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush, that it was their mismanagement that caused it.
OK, then, what about this “kill team?”
America has very distracted president.
He plays golf and studies his brackets much more then he concerns himself with HIS troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
@Nan G:
Sneak peek on Obama’s comments regarding the charges in your post:
“I inherited this problem from the previous administration. – BHO”
Dr.J Would note a “potential genocide” is different than an in progress genocide.
@johngalt:
Good point, JohnGalt.
I looked around and most media reports don’t provide the basic information of WHEN these atrocities took place.
But, if you look you can find out.
It was in 2010.
Obama was president.
This is as much Obama’s fault as Abu Ghraib was Bush’s …..in other words it was not really either man’s fault.
So Obama should be blamed as much as Bush was….which was a lot.
I’m sure the media will be fair…..and apply this rule consistently…..NOT!
@rich wheeler:
Really?
QUITE an exemple to AMERICANS, from a PRESIDENT TO START A WAR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS,
@drjohn: richwheeler said –
I guess that depends on which side of the genocide you are on…
anticsrocks. that is a good line, as usual,
bye
Nan G, hi, I prefer to take the word of the MILITARYS against Abu Ghraib”,
if they say, they are innocent, on a stage of war, that means INNOCENT,
as we know the tTALIBANS have resorted to profanation on their own dead bye cutting limbs and more
while one took picture with them dress as an AMERICAN SOLDIER, and they spread those pictures around to get the public outrage, It’s been told before many times, and observed by our MILITARYS,FROM TELESCOPIC LENSES, THIS STORY COME FROM GERMANY, WHICH ARE NOT IN A GOOD POSITION TO ACCUSE THE AMERICANS TROUPS IN AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE OF
WHAT WE KNOW HOW THEY BEHAVE ON THE WARII, WITH PRISONERS. FURTHER MORE THERE IS
MANY MUSLIMS IN GERMANY ALSO LIKE IN EVERY COUNTRY AND AMERICA INCLUDED WHICH WOULD HELP ON THE SCAM BEING PERFECTED WITH THE TECHNOLOGY WE KNOW OF
JUST ASK RIDE A PALE HORSE TO CONFIRM THE JUXTAPOSE EFFECT ON A PICTURE
OF ANY KIND, BYE
The hits just keep on coming!
Howard Dean
Sadly Barry does have the right. May be not the political right.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262771/political-dispute-not-legal-one-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2
GW actually did have support from Congress on Iraq. And Saddam was way way way worse and more dangerous that Qaddafi (Khaddafi ? Gheddafi ?).
Aside from that, I have not made up my mind about intervention in Lybia yet. But then again, I’m Italian and living like 400 miles from Tripoli…
Howard Dean,Dr.John and Dennis Kucinich. Politics make strange bedfellows.
Vincenzo FIORENTINI, thank you for visiting, why do I think that you are to close for comfort in there,
be carefull , and keep in touch if you will, you are close enough to give us your opinion,
bye
@Vincenzo Fiorentini: You said:
How do you figure that?
From the article you cited:
Obama’s incompetence shows more and more with each passing day.
In the United States the word “treaty” refers to a procedure defined in the Constitution. The president, the Constitution states, “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Accordingly, regardless of how they are described in ordinary language (the “Covenant” of the League of Nations, the “Charter” of the United Nations, or the Atlantic “Pact”), all international accords concluded according to this procedure are “treaties,” and all others are “agreements.” For the first half century after independence, all treaties, once ratified by Congress, were regarded as, in the words of the Constitution, the (supreme) Law of the Land, super-added to the laws of the land and creating individual rights and duties in all states and upheld by federal courts. Today not all treaties are so highly regarded. (West’s encyclopedia)
The above paragraph explains why President Obama did not violate the constitutionality of the law when he helped set up a no-fly zone in Libya, after consulting with the United Nations.
Contrary to what some members of congress think President Obama acted within the intent and purpose of the United Nations charter (treaty) which congress themselves had already approved. However, if President Obama had signed a declaration of war against Libya he would have violated the constitutionality of the law, due to the fact a declaration of war would have to be constitutionally approved by congress first.
Now, if any one can provide a document signed by the President declaring war against Libya, then and only then will I agree that the president violated the constitutionality of the law pertaining to the above situation.
This is due to the fact, I do not base my opinion on what the president does according to the BS of the media and/or any one else. I base my opinion on whether or not the president abides by the laws of this nation and/or the constitutionality of the law when making his decisions.
@Bill: That’s a stretch, Bill. But I will agree that every President since Nixon has considered the War Powers Act to NOT supersede the Constitution.
I was merely pointing out that Vincenzo’s comments contradicted what he cited.
@ anticsrocks I agree with what you said.
Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution
The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the glob lists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution”.
The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”.
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.
Here is something you may want to consider, the agenda of the World federalist movement and the agenda of the United Nations. Their agenda is (one and the same) the creation of a World Constitution created by them, rather than a Constitution created by the people and for the people.
CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Adopted in London on 16 November 1945 and amended by the General Conference at its second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, twelfth, fifteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth sessions.
(To review a copy of said constitution copying the first paragraph listed above to the inter.)
Note the date in which the federalist movement met in order to frame a World Constitution.
In 1945, the Committee to Frame a World Constitution convened at the University of Chicago and drafted a Constitution for the World.
Now, note the date the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO) was adopted. .
(Adopted in London on 16 November 1945)
***The Constitution of UNESCO, a specialized agency of the United Nations, was signed on 16 November 1945 in London and came into force on 4 November 1946 . ***
The United Nations works to support a rule of law framework at the national level: a Constitution or its equivalent, as the highest law of the land; clear and consistent legal framework, and implementation thereof; strong institutions of justice, governance, security and human rights that are well structured, financed, trained and equipped; transitional justice processes and mechanisms; and a public and civil society that contributes to strengthening the rule of law and holding public officials and institutions accountable. These are the norms, policies, institutions and processes that form the core of a society in which individuals feel safe and secure, where disputes are settled peacefully and effective redress is available for harm suffered, and where all who violate the law, including the State itself, are held to account.
Think about it, where did the federalist movement and/or the united nations get their lawful authority to undermine the U.S. Constitution in order to replace it with a World Constitution instead.
Bill, then how come they supersede the law of the LAND anyway,
I would say,IT’s because it seem that the president find it eazyer to call on the UN, than to call on CONGRESS when it fits his agenda, yes the more you allow the UN to be ask to make your agenda com trough, the more you as a PRESIDENT OF A SUPERPOWER COUNTRY, DIMINISH THE POWER OF IT, AND THEREFOR GIVE THE UN THAT EXTRA POWER A BIT EVERY TIME TO A POINT WHERE THEY START TO PUSH IT ON YOUR COUNTRY LIKE A MANIFEST TO OBEY THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION AS OPPOSE TO THIS AMERICA UNIQUE CONSTITUTION BEING BROKEN DOWN AND DISRESPECT BY A NEW GENERATION AS ONLY A PAPER TO MEDLE WITH BY A GUILTY GOVERNMENT WHICH FORGET THAT THEY ARE THE SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE
Bill, how do you define a declaration of war?, is it when you bomb the vecinity of a country’s leader to get him to go, bombarded his tanks which are deployed to suppress a revolution coming from neighbordly radicals that you sympathise with, at home, there for is commiting an act of war,
After President Obama got elected, I began comparing what he said on the campaign trail and what he’s done as president. In 2009, I was invited to the White House to meet with members of Obama’s National Security Team with a few other milbloggers. Unlike the invite to the White House under Bush, President Obama never stepped foot out of the office literally 15 feet away from us. I made it clear how I felt the administration wasn’t keeping its campaign promises and named several examples of the time: the idea to charge troops for medical care, DHS Secretary calling returning combat veterans a domestic terrorism threat, and a few other examples. Within 30 days of that visit, an IG complaint came down from DOD against my blogging activities. It was the beginning of a long year of fighting IG for my freedom of speech. They tried to pin an article 88 on me:
The problem was that I’m not a commissioned officer, so refused any article 15. It was a long battle and ended with me getting an official letter of reprimand. I was also fighting the Huntsville City School Board at the same time for my freedom of speech.
This administration doesn’t like having their hypocrisy publicized.
That’s when you know you’re doing something right, and are making headway, CJ. They don’t waste time with those with no influence. You should consider it the ultimate compliment, if not one major PITA event and hurdle in your life. Anyone of lesser import and voice would have been simply dismissed as inconsequential, guy.
CJ, good that there is people like you, unafraid to use the FREEDOM OF SPEECH for a good positive
resolved of a wrong from THE GOVERNMENT, it show the young where to judge the right and the wrong, even if it demolish what they have learned in school as a propaganda to love AND SERVE OBAMA ON TOP OF ALL,
even the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHT
@<a@ilovebeeswarzone you raised an interesting question, how come they superseded the law of the LAND anyway.
Believe it or I can answer that question.
The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is attempting to bring together (NGOs) non governmental organizations and individuals which support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies. . . . .
In other words, the World Federalist Movement (WFM) is attempting to circumvent the U.S. constitution in order to allow (NGOs) to create Federal laws, instead of allowing the legislative power to create Federal Laws to remain with congress it self. (as constitutionally defined.)
Organizations are categorized as either Member or Associate Member. Both Members and Associate Members are entitled to appoint delegates to the Movement's quadrennial Congresses; Members are further entitled to appoint one or more members to the Movement governing Council, which meets annually. (All such appointments are based on the membership size of the organization.) Currently, the annual dues are set at a flat rate for Associate Members and on a sliding scale for Members based on the size of their membership.
(Quadrennial congresses by the way is making reference to non-governmental organizations becoming the new world congressional governing council which has plenary constitutional powers equal to -or- superior to that of the U.S. Congress itself, pertaining to the authority to create and enforce the laws of this nation and/or the world. Thus, eliminating the constitutional need for U.S. congressional authority to approve any -or- all laws they feel that need to be enacted and/or enforced on behalf of the world.
In other words it is the view of the world federalist movement as well as some members of our governmental bodies, that a World Constitution would supersede the U.S. Constitution and/or any other countries Constitutions.
CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN, REVEALED AT ONE TIME TO HAVE WORK FOR THE ENNEMIES, TO PUT EIDS IN THE GROUND TO GET A FEW DOLLARDS TO FEED HIS 7 CHILDREN, AND THAT THEY HAVE TO
FIND WORK WHERE EVER THEY CAN, SO THAT CIVILIEN AND OTHERS LIKE HIM ARE ENNEMIES TO BE ELIMINATE DURING A WAR, THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE OF THE WORD ENNEMIES, NO CATEGORYS , LIKE SMALL MEDIUM OR LARGE, EXCEPT ONE WORD THAT IS ENNEMIES.
TO CHANGE THAT RULE IS TO HURT OUR MILITARYS POTENTIAL TO WIN THE WAR,
OR GET THEM OUTOF THERE AND BRING THEM BACK,
BECAUSE SOMEDAY, WE WILL NEED THEM HERE TO PROTECT AMERICANS, FROM ENNEMIES WITHIN
Bill we kind of suspect it existed, they where keeping a low key, and was it last year that MATA WAS HAVING A POST ON THE BASIC OF THAT ORGANISATION, THERE WAS ALSO WARNING FROM A NEWLY CANADIAN POLITIC MOVEMENT ACTUALY BEGGING TO BE BELEIVED, ACTUALY IT WAS BEFORE LAST NOVEMBER AS I RECALLED THAT REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT NEW PARTY THAT NOVEMBER WAS THE CRITICAL TIMING TO NEGATE THAT WORLD POWER, IT HAD LEFT ME PERSONALY, TROUBLED TO THINK THAT A WORLD POWER WOULD TAKE OVER, OUR COUNTRYS
THAT AMERICA ON HIS NORTH AND SOUTH, COULD BE A MELTING POT, YES VERY TROUBLESOME ENOUGH TO WANT TO FIGHT FOR PREVENTING THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT HOW DO YOU FIGHT WHEN THE LEADERS AGREED ON IT BEHIND YOUR BACK AS A SECRET THAT ONLY THEM WILL DECIDE WHEN TO REVEAL IT, AND WHEN DO YOU DECIDE TO BEGIN THE FIGHT, AND WHO WILL YOU FIGHT,
WHICH LEADER,YOURS OR THE UN TOP GUY, OR ALL OF THEM WHO WHERE COMPLACANT ON THAT WILL TO INSTALL THAT WORLD GOVERNMENT,
@ilovebeeswarzone: All caps is really hard to read.
CJ so sorry, I get carried away and forget to click on it, your remark will help me to not forget it,
as a non pro on computer I need more of it to learn the do’s and don’t’s,
thank you
CJ, as a matter of fact, i could not figure out what you meant at first with ” your caps”
I thought “cap, caps, aptain, no, cap what’s that, then I came back and look at my comment and THE LIGHT bulb came on, oh yes that ” CAP” thats how good I am,
but getting better
Bill, would it have a connection with THE BILDENBERG, GROUP ORGANISATION.
THEY where suspected to advocate a WORLD ORDER and meet from time to time in well guard high profile resorts or CASTLES IN EUROPE, and the groups are made of top world influencials, like kings and queens top writer bankers ,and so on,to discuss the world affairs,
bye
CJ, I must add that I even tought of the word ” capucino” it came because we have TIM’S HORTON best capucino coffee, my favorite
Ilovebeeswarzone The answer to your question would it have a connection with THE BILDENBERG, GROUP ORGANISATION. Is yes
Obama, Hillery Clinton, a member of the department of justice,(DOJ), some court justices, as well as some of our elected officials as well as some individuals who were hoping to be elected, have attended the BILDENBERG, GROUP meetings at one time or another to discuss the future of this nation and the world.
The BILDENBERG, GROUP ORGANISATION is just a front for the elite few super wealthy individuals, who are attempting to create a one word order. They, have already succeed in creating a corporation to control the economics of the world. (the money supply) You may have heard of this corporation, it is the private international banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.
Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
“…[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the “detailed physical performance” and “day to day operation” of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations…”
However, the following also states.
“The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974). . . .
State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S. Ct. 705, 708, 79 L. Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal’s ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . .”
It now appears there is two conflicting laws.
1. Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities of the government for
purposes of immunity from State taxation.
2. Reserve Banks are not deemed to be federal instrumentalities of the government, for
purposes of Federal tort Liability.
________________________________________________________________________
The two aforementioned laws make it very clear that Congress can create independent agencies which can be declared as federal instrumentalities of the government, which act as agents on the governments behalf. These said laws also makes it very clear that Congress has granted the government “immunity” from all liability pertaining to actions of the independent agencies, which were created to aid them in the conducting of their business.
The creation of these laws clearly show how Congress can manipulate the laws to mean whatever they want them to mean whenever they deem it necessary to do so. Congress needs to revise these laws. Reserve Banks are either independent agencies which act as agents on the government’s behalf -or- Reserve Banks are not independent agencies which act as agents on the government’s behalf.
In other words, Reserve Banks are either part of the executive branch of government, which has the lawful authority to act on the government’s behalf -or- Reserve Banks are privately owned and locally controlled independent corporations (agencies) acting unconstitutionally on behalf of the government.
Several recent Supreme Court separations of powers decisions have noted that there are three, and only three, distinct branches of government; ‘independent’ agencies, therefore, either are in one of the three branches or they are unconstitutional. See Symposium on Administrative Law, The Uneasy Constitutional Status of Administrative Agencies, 36 AM. U.L. REV. 276 (forthcoming 1987). . .
Beez, no problem at all. I like your comments. I’m Texan, so I tend to write weird myself. But, I can shoot straight so I think makes up for it! Heh.
Ilovebeeswarzone
By the way the correct name for this group is not the BILDENBERG, GROUP. The correct name is the Bilderberg Group. However it is close enough, I understood who you were making reference to.
I have made the same mistake myself pertaining to this groups name from time to time.
Bill thank you, for this explanation, oops my second error on 2 comments sorry, I had a feeling that I was not quite right on the name, but I let it ride, afraid to loose my comment thoughts,
I had followed a story of one person trying to clear their real agenda, he was at a place of their meeting, was also pursue by security, even violently,I found it on the search the web on GOOGLE by their name
after that CANADIAN politicien speech I read also on the another search, she also mentioned
the word TRILATERAL, and was about their wish to have USA and MEXICO AND CANADA be joyned
in one COUNTRY, you probably heard of this one, and that special mention of NOVEMBER was she said so important to counter the decision by joyning her party to get in power to save CANADA,
that party was so young so I had mix feeling of their truthness, but she was very good speaker, and quite credible although so strange text, realy hard to beleive that it could happen, that they realy exist
and could take charge of our MILITARY WITHOUT ANY FIGHT, no contest no knowledge of their power
already controling our COUNTRYS, and still we find it unthinkeble
CJ, your comment are super intelligent full of knowledge, and the last one had me and I’m sure others choking trying to compose myself to let go an info I had and thinking It would bring a new side
of the healing process that I beleived in. thank you for being a real person to us
Beezy – If it helps you to remember, all capital letters is considered shouting. 🙂
anticsrochs, I’m glad to know that, It’s not my nature to shout far from it,
so I would hate to think that people think that I have a big mouth,
thank’s for telling me, bye
Bill, alow me that comment, as I reread your own, the last time I visited as I mentioned , that inflencal group, stating names of other attending the meeting, It was further back than I thought. and before the
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; as I read on your list that OBAMA AND ALSO HILLARY CLINTON,
attended other future meeting!!! NOW my question would be … IF an elected leader is being shown
to approve of the goal of that WORLD ORGANISATION, AND IS PROVEN TO COMMIT ACTIONS AS TO HELPING THE GOAL OF THAT ORGANISATION TO ADVANCE FUTRTHER in power therefor negating the
USA CONGRESS LAWS of the CONTITUTION?. . THEN doesn’t IT make that person a TRAITOR to this COUNTRY, and has to be delt with by the laws of the land pointing of directions to deal with a traitor of AMERICA AND OCCUPYING A POSITION OF OF THE MOST POWERFULL PERSON IN AMERICA.
DO we know when the last traitor in AMERICA was delt with,? and what was his actions done,
what come to mind was an agent giving some top secrets info to RUSSIA.
BYE
again, THE QUADRENNIAL congresses , with that much powers, could have played an
very important role in electing a president in the last election, and by doing so giving him a debt
to repay in some other actions they decide to call on him. like he would be so much deep in it, as to
relenguish some power on them at the demize of the COUNTRY’S LAW of the land.
Ilovebeeswarzone
Just that fact alone that an individual who has attended a Bilderberg Group meeting does not necessarily make them a traitor to this county, or mean that they have violated the constitutionality of the law.
However, those who have attended a Bilderberg Group meeting can be influenced about how they view the future of this country.
It also can have an impact on their loyalties. This has become quite evident, seeing how some of our elected officials are beginning to make it clearly known that their loyalties is with those who have contributed the most money to their election campaigns instead of to the people who actually elected them to office.
This impact on their loyalties could eventually lead them to the point wherein they actually violate their oath of office and/or the trust of the people.
The constitution is clear that government was created by the people and for the people in order to aid them in the conducting of their business.
The constitution has never implied that the government was created by the corporations and for the corporations in order to aid them in the conducting of their business.
***Take a good look at what some of our elected officials are doing.***
Their actions speak louder than words
Bill, yes I see because they don’t try to hide it anymore, and the people are paying attention
a bit more lately, the thing about the world new more evident power, there is a great danger where the agenda of ISLAM is concerned,and today I saw a link from John Cooper of MR CAIN, very good answers
to a journalist, and he was noticing the certain unknown about the president actions ,HE trying to find the purpuse behind the LIBYA medeling, any way as you know that UTUB has other presentation and that other was about FRED GRANDY and his WIFE having had a forum to define the islamist in this COUNTRY, and found more than they expected as to their goal to conquer AMERICA
PUBLICLY shouted by the ISLAMISTS being interview; so my worry is that the WORLD ORGANISATION will be heavyly backed up by the ISLAMIST OF everywhere as they already are, to advance the end of their goal to be in power sooner than we the people could forsee, and prepare the people and scenario to learn how to react, when the first evident arrive, but then it will probably be too late ,
Bill, I say too late, meaning that IT will rquire more efforts and blood to repel the danger when It’s already inside the door, and in full mode of actions, probably also backt up by some leader of AMERICA,
trying to minimyse the reaction of the people while allowing a false peacefull arrival legitimating those
ennemies of the COUNTRY. UNDER THE UNBRELLA OF THE WORLD ORG.
Bill, by the way, John Cooper link is on the post name; WHY I LOVE SARAH,and he refer the
link to the speech of HERMAN CAIN, answering question, and FRED GRANDY IS ON another frame,among others
Ilovebeeswarzone
Thanks for letting me know about the John Cooper link.
Bill, I knew you would find it interesting too: I was also wondering if the WORLD ORG is in full control of NATO which is run by AMERICAN MILITARYS, as I suspect now to be,
thank you
Ilovebeeswarzone
The following is something might find interesting.
Re: Bilderberg – Did Obama ever attend?
Barack and Bilderberg
Recently, there has been much discussion about Barack Obama having possibly attended the recent Bilderberg conference in Virginia. This speculation arose when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sneaked off for a secretive meeting while in Virginia. As the AP reported, “Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane. Asked at the time about the Illinois senator’s whereabouts, [Obama spokesman Robert] Gibbs smiled and declined to comment.”7
The press that had been traveling with Obama were not made aware of the secretive meeting until the plane that they assumed Obama would be present on was moving down the runway, prompting many angry questions from the press towards Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs. One reported asked Gibbs, “Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?” to which he responded, “Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way and that is what we are doing.” This preceded another question, “Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting?” Gibbs simply replied, “I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting.” He again later repeated that, “There was a desire to do some meetings tonight, he was interested in doing them, others were interested in doing them, and to do them in a way that was private.”8
On Friday, June 6, it was reported that Bilderberg tracker, Jim Tucker, “called Obama’s office today to ask if he had attended Bilderberg. A campaign spokeswoman refused to discuss the matter but would not deny that Obama had attended Bilderberg.”9
Note the date of the Bilderberg meeting and the date of Obama,s comments. Obama‘s comments were made shortly after the Bilderberg meeting had ended.
The Bilderberg Group met in Chantilly Virginia at the Westfields Marriott hotel from June 5-8. 2008.
On July 2, 2008 Obama just prior to being elected President made the following comments.
worldnetdaily.com says:
The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech.
In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
To review a copy of what the worldnetdaily.com said, copy the following on the internet.
Obama’s ‘Big Brother ‘ vanishes from speech
Read the transcripts of Barack Obama’s speech at Colorado Springs, Colorado on July 2, 2008 distributed by the Obama campaign and you won’t read every thing he said there. Perhaps one of the scariest things a Presidential candidate ever put in a speech was never written down in those transcripts because he departed from his prepared speech.
Now, consider what I said about once some one has attended a Bilderberg meeting, their views about the future of this country can be influenced by what they have heard while attending their meeting.
I found it very interesting that Obama does not want to explain what he meant by “the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force…” Nor does he want to explain where he got this idea of a “ civilian national security force” from. More importantly, I found it interesting why Obama himself and/or his staff are reluctant to confirm whether or not he has actually attended a Bilderberg meeting.
The next presidential election could be very interesting.
The views of President Obama pertaining to the future of this nation has slightly change from when he was a senator.
Therefore, the members of the bilderberg group and/or the Media (which they control) may might not support him in the future upcoming Presidential election as they did in the previous election.
Only time will tell if they have decide to support Obama or some one else, who is more in tune with their views and/or agenda, in the next Presidential election.
________________________________________________________________________
The answer to your question, “…the WORLD ORG is in full control of NATO which is run by AMERICAN MILITARYS, as I suspect now to be,…” Is yes
My reason for stating yes, is the fact members of NATO have attended various Bilderberg meetings. More importantly, so has the owners of some of our largest media’s. Yet we keep hearing there is no media which can tell us what was said and/or took place at these meetings.
@Bill: Here is a list of Bilderberg members:
http://www.nndb.com/org/514/000042388/
Some interesting names on this list are:
Evan Bayh
Ben Bernanke
Bill Clinton
Jon Corzine
Tom Daschle
Chris Dodd
Dianne Feinstein
Timothy Geithner
Henry Kissinger
Henry Paulson
Bill Richardson
Kathleen Sebelius
George Soros
Lawrence Summers
antics rocks
I appreciate you sending me a list of those who have attended a Bilderberg meeting.
The following is a more updated list, that I think you might be interested in.
Bilderberg 2009 Attendee List (revised) This does not however include a full list of those who attended, there are more who attended whose names are not known at this time.
Note: I have only copied the names on the list of USA attendees for your perusal.
The names with ** are the most important that you need to know about.
**Keith B. Alexander, United States (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director of the National Security Agency)
Roger Altman, United States (investment banker, former U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton)
**George David, United States (Chairman and former CEO of United Technologies Corporation, board member of Citigroup)
Niall Ferguson, United States (Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School)
**Timothy Geithner, United States (Secretary of the Treasury)
**Donald Graham, United States (CEO and chairman of the board of The Washington Post Company)
**Richard Holbrooke, United States (Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan)
**James Jones, United States (National Security Advisor to the White House)
Vernon Jordan, United States (lawyer, close adviser to President Bill Clinton)
Robert Keigkan, United States (? – possibly Robert Kagan, neocon historian)
Henry Kissinger, United States
Marie Jose Kravis, United States (Hudson Institute)
Jessica Matthews, United States (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
Craig Mundie, United States (chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft)
Richard Perle, United States (American Enterprise Institute)
**David Petraeus, United States (Commander, U.S. Central Command)
David Rockefeller, United States
**Dennis Ross, United States (special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton)
Barnett R. Rubin, United States (Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation)
**Lawrence Summers, United States (economist, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council)
Peter Thiel, United States (Clarium Capital Management LCC, PayPal co-founder, Board of Directors, Facebook)
Paul Volcker, U.S. (former Federal Reserve director, Chair of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board)
Financial Times)
James Wolfensohn, United States (former president of the World Bank)
**Paul Wolfowitz, United States (for U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank, currently AEI scholar)
**Fareed Zakaria, United States (journalist, author, and CNN host)
Robert Zoellick, United States (former managing director of Goldman Sachs, President the World Bank)
Remember what Ilovebeeswarzone ask about NATO. And what I said about a member of NATO attending a Bilderberg meeting, as well as the media.
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 15, 2011, before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the situation in Afghanistan
Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is an Indian-American journalist and author. From 2000, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International, until moving to Editor-At-Large of Time in 2010. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, and a frequent commentator and author about issues related to international relations, trade and American foreign policy.
antics rocks
Here is something else you may find interesting.
General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) on July 4, 2010, which was shortly after he attended a Bilderberg meeting in 2009.
I am not saying that his appointment as commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) was discussed at the 2009 Bilderberg meeting. However, I do find it to be kind of intriguing that his appointment was shortly after his 2009 meeting with the Bilderberg group
Bill, yes, JIM TUCKER was the one at the meeting HOTEL , I mentionned on previous comments,
scyping his name for memory lapsus, he was not well looked at, as his inquiring was notice by
thight security,now all this tells me, that on all scales of the ladder, they have some of their chosen ones to pull the string on their behalf goal end, by influencing them on an invitation to their meeting
very PRETIGIOUSLY presented to them as a highest honor to have been invited, therefor printing in their mind that they are lucky to have been selected to attend, therefor an eazy sell game
to join their views,presented under the name of BENEFICIAL TO HUMANITY AS A WHOLE
thank you again.
Bill, again as I read again on these infos, another thought come to mind,
WOULD the TRILATERAL option from that WORLD ORG. have someting to do with OBAMA refusal to close the BORDER ON MEXICAN SIDE, and have had that gathering at the WHITE HOUSE,
WIT ALL THE DEMOCRATS CHEERING, ON , while the ARIZONA CONFLICT was on
their discussions, and the MEXICAN GIVING HIS VIEWS ON THIS, which was an only AMERICAN
LEGIT DISPUTE to be settel, not by calling the MEXICAN PRESIDENT TO SUPPORT THE FEDERAL ANTI ARIZONA AFFAIRS.
Ilovebeeswarzone
Pertaining to your question “WOULD the TRILATERAL option from that WORLD ORG. have something to do with OBAMA refusal to close the BORDER ON MEXICAN SIDE,…”
My thought on this is, Probably Not.
The elite few who are trying to set up a one world government is only interested in one thing, which is the total control of the people thru controlling the economics of the world (the money supply).
Consider the following quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild.
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”
The elite few use the type of information you just ask me about, to keep the people focused on other things, instead of on them, the elite few.
The more things they can come up with to distract us, the people, the better it is for them.
We, the people, need to keep our focus on the them, the elite few who want to control the people thru controlling the money supply of the nation‘s, and not let ourselves get caught up in the things that distract us from doing so.
The biggest threat to the elite few who are trying to control the people, is when the people themselves get fed up with their BS and start holding them accountable for their actions once they have violated the law.
Bill, yes it make a lot of sense, It become hard when those in power are in tune with them,
looking to mingle with them, looking for sharing their wealth, greedy,to see them shine
in their castle, bowing to them as servant they are,and coming back to a beautifull country that allowed them to rise on top, where they are unable to lead and serve a people full of intelligence,
full of braves, full of pride full of tolerance and compassion, a people that know their laws written long ago that has protect the NATION, a law written to endure time itself, and those leader unable to understand what is a SUPERPOWER COUNTRY, are trying to humble it,by trying to make them servants
of their cause by undermining the CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHT, but never will ,
they can’t make the proud bow like they did, never will happen in AMERICA wait till
the time come to see what we the people can do, with all their inner power coming out all together in one
voice, wait till they rise to the power they have inherit from their ancestors who forge this AMERICA with their blood, wait when the time come for AMERICA TO RISE, and no WORLD ORGANIZATION
WILL CONTROL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Bill, thank you, for sharing your knowledge patiently and precisly,
I appreciate it,
Bill, the thing I notice, that when I visited the BIDERBERG site, there was kings and queen and foreign
guess and a fewer AMERICANS, among those I remember GEITNER name, and JONES, and BERNANKE,
and just maybe 3 more or 4, and when anticsrocks gave his list there where more of AMERICANS, and you came with even more of them, so I don’t know what it mean that the more we go and the more AMERICANS get in the list of guess, would it mean that they have been recruted by the other older one that where on previous meeting,
Ilovebeeswarzone
Pertaining to your last statement “… I don’t know what it mean that the more we go and the more AMERICANS get in the list of guess, would it mean that they have been recruited by the other older one that where on previous meeting, “
This statement you made is partially true, they do rely on others older members, in order to recruit new members. However, they also rely strongly on their lobbyists who they send to congress, in order to recruit the new members of congress personally.
Bill thank you, for your anwer.