Lets come together!

This is my attempt at bringing us together. This isn't me trying to show people I'm a smarty pants (im not, Im a human being who does not know everything and makes mistakes. also please bear with my spelling and punctuation errors). This is me trying to help you, and get you to help me. We're in this together!

First lets talk about what we can agree on. There are two political parties here in America that run the government. The Democrats and the Republicans. I know there are other parties, but lets face it. These are the two who are steering the ship right now. Agreed?

Now we can assume that the individual Democrats and Republicans(politicians) political agenda is close if not the same as the political party that got them elected.(democrat agenda, republican agenda) Agreed?

So how do the political parties come up with their agenda? Well it would stand to reason that lobbyist groups who flip the bill for the political parties heavily influence their agenda. Agreed?

Now if we are all still in agreement, it should be clear that this is a problem. The corporate big business international banking Lobbyist groups are creating the agenda for the political parties, who in turn fund the politicians election campaigns and fill their bank accounts. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the interests of these Lobbyist groups are steering the agenda of our politicians. Agreed?

These lobbyist groups fund both political parties. Do you think Microsoft only donated to the republican party in the 2000 presidential election? No, they donated money to both the Democrat and the Republican party. This is standard procedure for lobbyist groups. The reason being is that most corporate big businesses and international banks don't really care which party is in control, as long as they have their voice in that parties agenda. Granted, I am sure some lobbyists have a preference. That doesn't mean the lobbyists have total loyalty to either political party. Agreed?

Now I think we can agree that the power of the government in a democratic republic lies with the people. "We the people", right? Did we the people ask for the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership? Did we the people ask for a War on Drugs, or a War on Terror? Did we the people ask for the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about? Did we the people ask for the Federal Reserve? Did we the people ask for Homeland Security, or the Patriot Act? Did we the people ask for programs like MK-Ultra, Tuskegee Experiments, Operation Ajax? How about the Military Commisions act, or all the FEMA Martial Law Executive Orders? The government is supposed to work for the people. However, it is clear, that power has slowly been shifted away from the people. The Constitution is in shreds right now and you don't have to be a "crazy conspiracy wacko lunatic" to understand this, agreed?

Well, if we are still in agreement. This leaves us with still more questions. If you don't agree with whats stated above, and think that our politicians(and political parties) represent the desires of the people. Then stop reading this, and research what is stated above. If enough research is done on this subject, without naive willful denial. You will be able to see that what is stated above is pretty accurate.

Ok, so where does this leave us. Well it leaves us with both political parties under the control of Corporate Big Businesses and International Bankers. Which corrupt our politicians and steers them in the direction of the money flow.

Now I will attempt to lift the curtain on some of these forces, and really get into the grim of this situation. I will do this by example. Recently,The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) released a report called Building a North American Community.

Watch this Lou Dobbs CNN report about this subject.(its only 4 minutes of your time)



Did you watch all that? Notice Frank Gaffney from the Center for Security Policy said in this report about erasing/merging the borders "thats what would happen if anybody serious were to embrace this strategy" developed by the CFR. I wonder if Vice President CFR member Dick Cheney is someone serious? Oh you didnt know Dick Cheney was a member of the CFR?

Watch this report about Cheney and his CFR membership. (its only 2 minutes of your time)



This is only the tip of the iceberg. If you are not familiar with the Council on Foreign Relations, this may come as a surprise. You would most likely be amazed at its membership list of elites. Which includes Bill Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Alan Greenspan, Dan Rather, David Rockefeller, Barbara Walters, Joseph I. Lieberman, John D. Rockefeller, Newton L. Gingrich, Richard A. Gephardt, Tom Brokaw... This list goes on for days. Just spend a few moments searching through that list, and you will begin to realize that the CFR and Trilateral Commision have their hands in everything. They're in the Treasury Department, White House, State Department, Congress, Federal Reserve System, Banking Institutions, Labor Unions, U.S. Military, the Media, Energy Companies, Big Business Industry, Education... you name it.

We need to do some serious honest evaluating of these groups agendas. We have already gone over and should be in agreement at this point that the Big Business Corporate Banking agenda filters down into our politicians. Which directly influences the motion of our government. We need to be honest with ourselves and others. Friends, we need to tell the truth right now. We can still take our country back from these Corporate Banking forces that have taken away the power from we the people. Its not the Democrats vs. the Republicans. I really wish it was that simple! Unfortunately, we know its not. Its the Corporate Big Business forces vs. the people. We need to realize that, and we need to realize how they have organized against we the people.

If you stuck with me all the way through this. Thank you for taking the time. I'm doing this because I love you, and I need your help. I'm not doing this because I want to prove anybody wrong. My point with this, is that YOUR RIGHT! Our nation is in trouble! Its time to do some serious evaluation of the situation. Thats what I am attempting to do, and to share the information that I have come across in my(and thousands of others) research. Sure I may be opinionated, but this is an opinion based on facts, not theory.

I will finish with words from I King.

Man may, at the onset, control the direction which events take, but once his choice is made, events soon escape his control and history proceeds by its own force and momentum.
-HIM Haile Selassie I

Still Don't Believe In The New World Order?

New Lou Dobbs video exposes the NWO and the NAU

are you listening?

National Guard Attacked Near Mexico Border

Judicial Watch

Armed Mexican drug smugglers ransacked a National Guard unit in the Arizona desert this week, contradicting immigrant advocates’ portrait of a U.S.-Mexico border crossed only by humble and desperate migrants in pursuit of the American dream.

The attack took place late at night in a portion of the Arizona-Mexico border near Nogales that is well known as a drug corridor. In fact, the 120-mile stretch of desert is the U.S. Border Patrol Tucson sector’s busiest for drug seizures. Last year alone, 124,000 pounds of narcotics were confiscated in the area.

Evidently aware that the U.S. National Guard is helping the overwhelmed Border Patrol man these remote portions of the border, the violent Mexican drug smugglers used force to assure their cargo made it safely into the country. The National Guardsmen were forced to retreat and eventually, the attackers scrambled back into Mexico.

This is not the first time these sophisticated Mexican drug cartels use force to penetrate the United States. In fact, they often team up with members of the Mexican military and criminal gangs to assure their valuable goods make it into the country. Sometimes they get individuals, supposedly pursuing a better life in America, to carry smaller loads in backpacks.

Hundreds of incursions by the Mexican military have been documented in the southern border since the late 1990s, with Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement officers regularly coming under gunfire attack. For years federal government officials denied the invasions, but fed up law enforcement officials in Texas took photos and provided other evidence.

ETA suspects arrested in France

cnn

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Police arrested two suspected members of the Basque separatist group ETA in southern France Tuesday, the Spanish Interior Ministry said in a statement.

The arrests were the first such detentions since a car bomb exploded at a Madrid airport parking garage on December 30, killing two people and ending a nine-month ETA cease-fire.

One of the suspects, Asier Larrinaga Rodriguez, had been sought in connection with a car bomb seized in Spain's northern Basque country last week, as well as a nearby ETA weapons hideout discovered December 23, the statement said.

French and Spanish police were working to identity the second suspect.

Both suspects were arrested near the southern French town of Ascain, the statement said.

The separatist group had promised its cease-fire -- declared March 22 -- would be "permanent," raising hopes for an end to nearly 40 years of ETA violence blamed for more than 800 deaths and thousands of injuries. ETA wants an independent Basque homeland.

The car bombing at Madrid's airport killed two Ecuadorean immigrants, caused slight injuries to about 20 others and severely damaged the parking garage.

Following the attack, the government said the fledgling peace process was finished.

Bush unlikely to face showdown over 'surge'

san francisco chronicle

(01-09) 04:00 PST Washington -- President Bush will face the first stiff resistance from Congress to his Iraq war plans since the U.S. invasion nearly four years ago as more Republicans question his policy and newly empowered Democrats overwhelmingly oppose his expected call for 20,000 more troops.

Yet given the powers of the commander in chief, and the manifold risks of a U.S. defeat, Bush appears to have the authority -- despite congressional unease -- to make one last stab at stabilizing Iraq.

As the Republican president prepares to lay out his new war plan in a speech Wednesday night, Democrats considered Monday withholding funding for what they're calling an escalation of the war.

Still, congressional opposition, especially among Republicans vital to Bush's support, has not yet reached the tipping point that would force the president to back down.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who declared last month that he was at the end of his rope on Iraq, said Bush told him and other GOP senators Monday at the White House that the new war plan was devised chiefly by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who presented it to Bush last month.

Smith said Bush appeared confident that al-Maliki would follow through on promises to commit Iraqi troops to quelling the violence in Baghdad and take aim at the Shiite militias led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, on whom al-Maliki relies for political support.

"It is that belief that the president has, and the faith he has in Prime Minister Maliki, that leads him to tack into the winds of American public opinion," Smith said. "What this sets up is a classic war powers confrontation between the White House and the Congress.

"My dilemma, as for every member of Congress, is that we have only one commander in chief at a time, and he is ordering our troops into a certain posture that puts them in harm's way. Do we budget away their bullets?"

Bush has been meeting with members of Congress in preparation for his speech, now weeks in the making. Smith said the Cabinet-room meeting Monday was attended by Bush's top war counselors: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen Hadley and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

Democrats now in the majority in the House and Senate are discussing the possibility of withholding funds for added troops as well as other limits, such as a cap on troop levels or a new resolution authorizing the use of force.

"This is an escalation, and we ought to have a chance to have our say," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "We ought to be able to vote on it before that occurs."

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., acknowledged, however, that it would be difficult to separate money for more troops from general funding for the war, especially if the so-called troop "surge" comes by extending the duty of troops already in Iraq or speeding up rotations of troops scheduled to go in. "So whether you can carve out and say, 'We're going to fund this, but not additional troops,' that's not clear," Obama said. "But those are the kinds of questions that I think are being asked right now."

Republicans also said they want to examine any new plan. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who last fall called for a new war strategy while chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "The administration will state its case, and then I'll state mine."

Asked if Bush can expect full Republican support for his plan, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, replied bluntly, "No."

"I just think it's one of those subjects that's going to divide the Congress just as it's divided the country," Cornyn said. But he said the division is unlikely to affect Bush's ability to conduct the war as he sees fit.

"The only real effective tool that Congress has is the power of the purse, and I can't imagine we would cut off money to fund the troops," Cornyn said. Even cutting off money for additional troops, he said, would be a mistake because "it would guarantee failure" and risk creating a power vacuum in Iraq that could be exploited by terrorists, as in the case of Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush's plan, he said, is "our last, best chance at success."

Bush has money for now. The military spending bill was one of only two of the 11 required appropriations measures that Congress passed last year while still under Republican control. The administration is expected to make a large new request for more money soon to finance the war in separate legislation, called a supplemental appropriation. Estimates are that the new request could be about $100 billion -- on top of the estimated $450 billion already spent for the war in Iraq.

As commander in chief, the president has broad authority to conduct war, and Congress has only the blunt tool of withdrawing funding. Democrats have only a one-vote majority in the Senate, making it difficult to thwart the president.

Politically and legislatively, support from his fellow Republicans remains vital for Bush's Iraq policy. But it is rapidly weakening under Iraq's relentless disintegration despite every change in administration tactics, and the November midterm election that knocked Republicans from power on Capitol Hill.

The U.S. military has about 140,000 troops in Iraq. Several Republicans already have announced their opposition to increasing troop levels, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican and former National Security Council official who barely clung to her seat in November.

Wilson made a major speech in Washington Friday criticizing Bush for "mushy rhetoric" about the U.S. stake in a democratic Iraq.

Bush is getting strong support, however from several leading Republicans, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona. Joining them is independent former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. They sharply warned their colleagues that failing to back Bush's effort would ensure failure in Iraq and all its consequences.

"Let's not compound the mistakes of the past by advocating withdrawal or redeployment," Graham said. "Because what would happen then? It would be, in my opinion, a declaration of losing a war not yet lost, that we can't afford to lose."