Friday, April 29, 2011
Obama Working “Under The Radar” To Sneak Attack Second Amendment
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
According to a little noticed quote in the Washington Post earlier this month which has attracted virtually no media attention, President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration is working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment rights of American citizens.
During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley.
“What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media,” writes Jeff Knox….”Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly invoked rhetoric about the flow of guns being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico as a talking point with which to chill gun rights of American citizens.
Just months into his term in the Oval Office, Obama told Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the U.S. was to blame for much of Mexico’s drug violence because of firearms that were purchased in America.
“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Obama told Calderon during a press conference. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”
However, it was recently revealed that the U.S. government itself was responsible for smuggling guns over the border which ended up directly in the hands of Mexican drug lords. Under operation “Fast and Furious,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.”
The ATF claimed the program was an effort to identify criminals by seeing where the guns ended up, but once across the border, “the agency seemed to lose track of the weapons,” reports Laura Carlsen. The firearms ended up in the hands of Mexico’s ruthless crime gangs and have been used to kill U.S. border agents and other innocent people.
When confronted on the issue, Obama simply denied all knowledge of the program.
In addition, as we reported earlier this week, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for a top Mexican drug-trafficking gang, Sinaloa, that was responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007, also obtained guns from the U.S. that were later used to kill people in Mexico City. Niebla recently told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he has been working for the U.S. government since January 2004.
Despite these revelations, the Obama administration is still pushing ahead with a proposal to force gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California to report the sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to the same person at one time or during any five business days directly to the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Could the plan to make gun dealers in these four states report to the government who is purchasing firearms be part of the sneak attack Obama promised Brady last month?
Obama attracted the fury of gun rights activists in 2008 when he said that Americans frustrated with the declining economy “cling to guns or religion” as a means of relieving their stress.
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
According to a little noticed quote in the Washington Post earlier this month which has attracted virtually no media attention, President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration is working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment rights of American citizens.
During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley.
“What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media,” writes Jeff Knox….”Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly invoked rhetoric about the flow of guns being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico as a talking point with which to chill gun rights of American citizens.
Just months into his term in the Oval Office, Obama told Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the U.S. was to blame for much of Mexico’s drug violence because of firearms that were purchased in America.
“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Obama told Calderon during a press conference. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”
However, it was recently revealed that the U.S. government itself was responsible for smuggling guns over the border which ended up directly in the hands of Mexican drug lords. Under operation “Fast and Furious,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.”
The ATF claimed the program was an effort to identify criminals by seeing where the guns ended up, but once across the border, “the agency seemed to lose track of the weapons,” reports Laura Carlsen. The firearms ended up in the hands of Mexico’s ruthless crime gangs and have been used to kill U.S. border agents and other innocent people.
When confronted on the issue, Obama simply denied all knowledge of the program.
In addition, as we reported earlier this week, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for a top Mexican drug-trafficking gang, Sinaloa, that was responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007, also obtained guns from the U.S. that were later used to kill people in Mexico City. Niebla recently told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he has been working for the U.S. government since January 2004.
Despite these revelations, the Obama administration is still pushing ahead with a proposal to force gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California to report the sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to the same person at one time or during any five business days directly to the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Could the plan to make gun dealers in these four states report to the government who is purchasing firearms be part of the sneak attack Obama promised Brady last month?
Obama attracted the fury of gun rights activists in 2008 when he said that Americans frustrated with the declining economy “cling to guns or religion” as a means of relieving their stress.
Obama Working “Under The Radar” To Sneak Attack Second Amendment
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
According to a little noticed quote in the Washington Post earlier this month which has attracted virtually no media attention, President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration is working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment rights of American citizens.
During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley.
“What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media,” writes Jeff Knox….”Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly invoked rhetoric about the flow of guns being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico as a talking point with which to chill gun rights of American citizens.
Just months into his term in the Oval Office, Obama told Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the U.S. was to blame for much of Mexico’s drug violence because of firearms that were purchased in America.
“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Obama told Calderon during a press conference. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”
However, it was recently revealed that the U.S. government itself was responsible for smuggling guns over the border which ended up directly in the hands of Mexican drug lords. Under operation “Fast and Furious,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.”
The ATF claimed the program was an effort to identify criminals by seeing where the guns ended up, but once across the border, “the agency seemed to lose track of the weapons,” reports Laura Carlsen. The firearms ended up in the hands of Mexico’s ruthless crime gangs and have been used to kill U.S. border agents and other innocent people.
When confronted on the issue, Obama simply denied all knowledge of the program.
In addition, as we reported earlier this week, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for a top Mexican drug-trafficking gang, Sinaloa, that was responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007, also obtained guns from the U.S. that were later used to kill people in Mexico City. Niebla recently told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he has been working for the U.S. government since January 2004.
Despite these revelations, the Obama administration is still pushing ahead with a proposal to force gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California to report the sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to the same person at one time or during any five business days directly to the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Could the plan to make gun dealers in these four states report to the government who is purchasing firearms be part of the sneak attack Obama promised Brady last month?
Obama attracted the fury of gun rights activists in 2008 when he said that Americans frustrated with the declining economy “cling to guns or religion” as a means of relieving their stress.
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
According to a little noticed quote in the Washington Post earlier this month which has attracted virtually no media attention, President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration is working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment rights of American citizens.
During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley.
“What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media,” writes Jeff Knox….”Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly invoked rhetoric about the flow of guns being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico as a talking point with which to chill gun rights of American citizens.
Just months into his term in the Oval Office, Obama told Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the U.S. was to blame for much of Mexico’s drug violence because of firearms that were purchased in America.
“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Obama told Calderon during a press conference. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”
However, it was recently revealed that the U.S. government itself was responsible for smuggling guns over the border which ended up directly in the hands of Mexican drug lords. Under operation “Fast and Furious,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.”
The ATF claimed the program was an effort to identify criminals by seeing where the guns ended up, but once across the border, “the agency seemed to lose track of the weapons,” reports Laura Carlsen. The firearms ended up in the hands of Mexico’s ruthless crime gangs and have been used to kill U.S. border agents and other innocent people.
When confronted on the issue, Obama simply denied all knowledge of the program.
In addition, as we reported earlier this week, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for a top Mexican drug-trafficking gang, Sinaloa, that was responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007, also obtained guns from the U.S. that were later used to kill people in Mexico City. Niebla recently told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he has been working for the U.S. government since January 2004.
Despite these revelations, the Obama administration is still pushing ahead with a proposal to force gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California to report the sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to the same person at one time or during any five business days directly to the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Could the plan to make gun dealers in these four states report to the government who is purchasing firearms be part of the sneak attack Obama promised Brady last month?
Obama attracted the fury of gun rights activists in 2008 when he said that Americans frustrated with the declining economy “cling to guns or religion” as a means of relieving their stress.
Obama’s Birth Certificate: Not the Issue
Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over “President” Obama’s qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.
The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, “Neo-Conservative” war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America’s favor – ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly “liberal” Obama administration.
Likewise, the seemingly “liberal” free-trade agreements pushed by Clinton, were expanded into the beginnings of the supernational Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America under the supposedly “conservative” Bush administration. Of course, theblueprints for the SPP or the geopolitical reordering of the Middle East weren’t drawn up by presidential administrations nor committees amongst America’s elected representatives, but rather by unelected corporate-funded think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institute. These think-tanks represent the collective interests of the largest corporations and financial institutions on earth and are the real, often obscure architects of both American and European foreign and domestic policy.
The only difference one can delineate then, is the brand of propaganda used during each supposedly ideologically differentiated political administration to sell this unipolar, unilateral, continuous agenda to the public as it creeps forward. But even upon examining each presidential administration, we are struck with names and affiliations of members who directly represent these corporate interests. To illustrate how entirely ineffectual and meaningless “Obama” is as a president, let’s examine some key members of his administration and what their affiliations are.
Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representingChiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations,Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
William Daley (Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations
Who amongst Obama’s administration can we honestly presume has the people’s, or even America’s best interests at heart? Goldman Sachs bankers? JP Morgan bankers? Corporate lobbyists? Indeed, these are the same banking, corporate, and political interests that guided the agenda under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and so on. While there is some debate over which US president was in fact the last “real” president who exercised an agenda it genuinely could claim ownership over, there is no doubt that over the last two decades the same corporate interests have been entirely steering America’s people and their destiny with but the veneer of “democracy.”
Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today.
In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other “Republicans” and “Neo-Conservatives.” The “Arab Spring” itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.
Ideologically, President Obama’s qualifications are important and many are right to question them.
Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions.
Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself – suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a “legitimate” president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.
Recognizing this grave reality, and instead concentrating on the corporate-financier interests that have hijacked American politics is essential to restoring a true constitutional republic. For it is not whose hands we think hold the power, it is in whose hands that really hold the power that shapes US policy. Definitively, US policy does not favor the people, definitively the power is not in the people’s hands.
As long as we grasp to the illusion that through the futile exercise of elections we are somehow “in control,” it will remain this way perpetually. The fact that our president is in charge of absolutely nothing and that his duties have long been shifted to an unelected corporate-financier oligarchy is the issue, not his dubious qualifications.
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over “President” Obama’s qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.
The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, “Neo-Conservative” war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America’s favor – ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly “liberal” Obama administration.
Likewise, the seemingly “liberal” free-trade agreements pushed by Clinton, were expanded into the beginnings of the supernational Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America under the supposedly “conservative” Bush administration. Of course, theblueprints for the SPP or the geopolitical reordering of the Middle East weren’t drawn up by presidential administrations nor committees amongst America’s elected representatives, but rather by unelected corporate-funded think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institute. These think-tanks represent the collective interests of the largest corporations and financial institutions on earth and are the real, often obscure architects of both American and European foreign and domestic policy.
The only difference one can delineate then, is the brand of propaganda used during each supposedly ideologically differentiated political administration to sell this unipolar, unilateral, continuous agenda to the public as it creeps forward. But even upon examining each presidential administration, we are struck with names and affiliations of members who directly represent these corporate interests. To illustrate how entirely ineffectual and meaningless “Obama” is as a president, let’s examine some key members of his administration and what their affiliations are.
Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representingChiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations,Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
William Daley (Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations
Who amongst Obama’s administration can we honestly presume has the people’s, or even America’s best interests at heart? Goldman Sachs bankers? JP Morgan bankers? Corporate lobbyists? Indeed, these are the same banking, corporate, and political interests that guided the agenda under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and so on. While there is some debate over which US president was in fact the last “real” president who exercised an agenda it genuinely could claim ownership over, there is no doubt that over the last two decades the same corporate interests have been entirely steering America’s people and their destiny with but the veneer of “democracy.”
Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today.
In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other “Republicans” and “Neo-Conservatives.” The “Arab Spring” itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.
Ideologically, President Obama’s qualifications are important and many are right to question them.
Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions.
Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself – suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a “legitimate” president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.
Recognizing this grave reality, and instead concentrating on the corporate-financier interests that have hijacked American politics is essential to restoring a true constitutional republic. For it is not whose hands we think hold the power, it is in whose hands that really hold the power that shapes US policy. Definitively, US policy does not favor the people, definitively the power is not in the people’s hands.
As long as we grasp to the illusion that through the futile exercise of elections we are somehow “in control,” it will remain this way perpetually. The fact that our president is in charge of absolutely nothing and that his duties have long been shifted to an unelected corporate-financier oligarchy is the issue, not his dubious qualifications.
Obama’s Birth Certificate: Not the Issue
Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over “President” Obama’s qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.
The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, “Neo-Conservative” war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America’s favor – ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly “liberal” Obama administration.
Likewise, the seemingly “liberal” free-trade agreements pushed by Clinton, were expanded into the beginnings of the supernational Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America under the supposedly “conservative” Bush administration. Of course, theblueprints for the SPP or the geopolitical reordering of the Middle East weren’t drawn up by presidential administrations nor committees amongst America’s elected representatives, but rather by unelected corporate-funded think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institute. These think-tanks represent the collective interests of the largest corporations and financial institutions on earth and are the real, often obscure architects of both American and European foreign and domestic policy.
The only difference one can delineate then, is the brand of propaganda used during each supposedly ideologically differentiated political administration to sell this unipolar, unilateral, continuous agenda to the public as it creeps forward. But even upon examining each presidential administration, we are struck with names and affiliations of members who directly represent these corporate interests. To illustrate how entirely ineffectual and meaningless “Obama” is as a president, let’s examine some key members of his administration and what their affiliations are.
Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representingChiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations,Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
William Daley (Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations
Who amongst Obama’s administration can we honestly presume has the people’s, or even America’s best interests at heart? Goldman Sachs bankers? JP Morgan bankers? Corporate lobbyists? Indeed, these are the same banking, corporate, and political interests that guided the agenda under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and so on. While there is some debate over which US president was in fact the last “real” president who exercised an agenda it genuinely could claim ownership over, there is no doubt that over the last two decades the same corporate interests have been entirely steering America’s people and their destiny with but the veneer of “democracy.”
Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today.
In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other “Republicans” and “Neo-Conservatives.” The “Arab Spring” itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.
Ideologically, President Obama’s qualifications are important and many are right to question them.
Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions.
Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself – suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a “legitimate” president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.
Recognizing this grave reality, and instead concentrating on the corporate-financier interests that have hijacked American politics is essential to restoring a true constitutional republic. For it is not whose hands we think hold the power, it is in whose hands that really hold the power that shapes US policy. Definitively, US policy does not favor the people, definitively the power is not in the people’s hands.
As long as we grasp to the illusion that through the futile exercise of elections we are somehow “in control,” it will remain this way perpetually. The fact that our president is in charge of absolutely nothing and that his duties have long been shifted to an unelected corporate-financier oligarchy is the issue, not his dubious qualifications.
Infowars.com
April 29, 2011
Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over “President” Obama’s qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.
The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, “Neo-Conservative” war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America’s favor – ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly “liberal” Obama administration.
Likewise, the seemingly “liberal” free-trade agreements pushed by Clinton, were expanded into the beginnings of the supernational Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America under the supposedly “conservative” Bush administration. Of course, theblueprints for the SPP or the geopolitical reordering of the Middle East weren’t drawn up by presidential administrations nor committees amongst America’s elected representatives, but rather by unelected corporate-funded think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institute. These think-tanks represent the collective interests of the largest corporations and financial institutions on earth and are the real, often obscure architects of both American and European foreign and domestic policy.
The only difference one can delineate then, is the brand of propaganda used during each supposedly ideologically differentiated political administration to sell this unipolar, unilateral, continuous agenda to the public as it creeps forward. But even upon examining each presidential administration, we are struck with names and affiliations of members who directly represent these corporate interests. To illustrate how entirely ineffectual and meaningless “Obama” is as a president, let’s examine some key members of his administration and what their affiliations are.
Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representingChiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations,Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
William Daley (Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations
Who amongst Obama’s administration can we honestly presume has the people’s, or even America’s best interests at heart? Goldman Sachs bankers? JP Morgan bankers? Corporate lobbyists? Indeed, these are the same banking, corporate, and political interests that guided the agenda under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and so on. While there is some debate over which US president was in fact the last “real” president who exercised an agenda it genuinely could claim ownership over, there is no doubt that over the last two decades the same corporate interests have been entirely steering America’s people and their destiny with but the veneer of “democracy.”
Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today.
In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other “Republicans” and “Neo-Conservatives.” The “Arab Spring” itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.
Ideologically, President Obama’s qualifications are important and many are right to question them.
Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions.
Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself – suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a “legitimate” president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.
Recognizing this grave reality, and instead concentrating on the corporate-financier interests that have hijacked American politics is essential to restoring a true constitutional republic. For it is not whose hands we think hold the power, it is in whose hands that really hold the power that shapes US policy. Definitively, US policy does not favor the people, definitively the power is not in the people’s hands.
As long as we grasp to the illusion that through the futile exercise of elections we are somehow “in control,” it will remain this way perpetually. The fact that our president is in charge of absolutely nothing and that his duties have long been shifted to an unelected corporate-financier oligarchy is the issue, not his dubious qualifications.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The Mysterious Deaths of Nine Gulf Oil Spill Whistleblowers
I found this over at newzworldorder.blogspot.com interesting stuff.
The Mysterious Deaths of Nine Gulf Oil Spill Whistleblowers
I found this over at newzworldorder.blogspot.com interesting stuff.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Bicycle Facade
A worker peers out a window last week at a bike shop in Altlandsberg near Berlin in the eastern German state of Brandenburg. When people in the town need to get rid of their bikes because they can't use them anymore, they often bring them to Peter Horstmann's used bicycle shop. His warehouse had begun overflowing with junk bikes that could no longer be repaired, so he came up with the idea of using some 160 bicycles to decorate the side of a building. The junk cycle art project has since become something of a tourist attraction in the town.
spiegel.de
Bicycle Facade
A worker peers out a window last week at a bike shop in Altlandsberg near Berlin in the eastern German state of Brandenburg. When people in the town need to get rid of their bikes because they can't use them anymore, they often bring them to Peter Horstmann's used bicycle shop. His warehouse had begun overflowing with junk bikes that could no longer be repaired, so he came up with the idea of using some 160 bicycles to decorate the side of a building. The junk cycle art project has since become something of a tourist attraction in the town.
spiegel.de
Obama Birth Certificate “Raises As Many Questions As It Answers”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 27, 2011
Despite some political commentators insisting that the White House release of what it claims to be Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate represents the end of the “crazy birther fringe” movement, those who most fiercely pushed doubts surrounding the president’s eligibility are not convinced.
While presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump welcomed the release of the document, he was quick to cast suspicion as to why it took so long and if the certificate was even genuine.
Trump said it was “amazing” that the document surfaced “all of a sudden” after he had begun asking questions about the controversy, adding that the certificate should be analyzed to determine its authenticity.
Indeed, the Smoking Gun website has already compiled a list of inconsistencies found in the document, including asking, “If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?”
Meanwhile, World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah, who has been at the forefront of the birther movement, heavily promoting Jerome Corsi’s investigations into the matter along with his new book, Where’s The Birth Certificate?, reacted to the news by saying the birth certificate “raises as many questions as it answers”.
At the center of the storm is the argument about whether the fact that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, which is confirmed on the document released by the White House today, makes Obama ineligible to become president because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
“Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens,” reports WND, meaning that the document released by the White House today could even lead to proving Obama’s ineligibility.
“The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama’s eligibility in 2008, without any basis. It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers,” Farah said today.
Some political commentators have hastily insisted that the release of the document means, “The “birther” movement is now dead as a political force,” a rush to judgment given the fact that the White House’s direct involvement now means the entire controversy will only continue to generate attention.
Since the American people have been habitually lied to about everything under the sun, with trust in government at an all time low, a PDF file put out directly by the Obama administration itself isn’t going to make the furore die down at all, and will only lead to claims that the document is a carefully crafted fake.
Obama’s long form birth certificate – http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Correspondence with the Hawaii State Department of Health can be seen here (PDF).
Full Article (With Links) infowars.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Something that seems odd to me is spending $2,000,000 in attorney fees, fighting the release of his birth certificate.
Why did he do that?
Did he give up his U.S. citizenship to become an Indonesian citizen?
What is his real name?
Infowars.com
April 27, 2011
Despite some political commentators insisting that the White House release of what it claims to be Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate represents the end of the “crazy birther fringe” movement, those who most fiercely pushed doubts surrounding the president’s eligibility are not convinced.
While presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump welcomed the release of the document, he was quick to cast suspicion as to why it took so long and if the certificate was even genuine.
Trump said it was “amazing” that the document surfaced “all of a sudden” after he had begun asking questions about the controversy, adding that the certificate should be analyzed to determine its authenticity.
Indeed, the Smoking Gun website has already compiled a list of inconsistencies found in the document, including asking, “If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?”
Meanwhile, World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah, who has been at the forefront of the birther movement, heavily promoting Jerome Corsi’s investigations into the matter along with his new book, Where’s The Birth Certificate?, reacted to the news by saying the birth certificate “raises as many questions as it answers”.
At the center of the storm is the argument about whether the fact that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, which is confirmed on the document released by the White House today, makes Obama ineligible to become president because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
“Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens,” reports WND, meaning that the document released by the White House today could even lead to proving Obama’s ineligibility.
“The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama’s eligibility in 2008, without any basis. It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers,” Farah said today.
Some political commentators have hastily insisted that the release of the document means, “The “birther” movement is now dead as a political force,” a rush to judgment given the fact that the White House’s direct involvement now means the entire controversy will only continue to generate attention.
Since the American people have been habitually lied to about everything under the sun, with trust in government at an all time low, a PDF file put out directly by the Obama administration itself isn’t going to make the furore die down at all, and will only lead to claims that the document is a carefully crafted fake.
Obama’s long form birth certificate – http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Correspondence with the Hawaii State Department of Health can be seen here (PDF).
Full Article (With Links) infowars.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Something that seems odd to me is spending $2,000,000 in attorney fees, fighting the release of his birth certificate.
Why did he do that?
Did he give up his U.S. citizenship to become an Indonesian citizen?
What is his real name?
Obama Birth Certificate “Raises As Many Questions As It Answers”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 27, 2011
Despite some political commentators insisting that the White House release of what it claims to be Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate represents the end of the “crazy birther fringe” movement, those who most fiercely pushed doubts surrounding the president’s eligibility are not convinced.
While presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump welcomed the release of the document, he was quick to cast suspicion as to why it took so long and if the certificate was even genuine.
Trump said it was “amazing” that the document surfaced “all of a sudden” after he had begun asking questions about the controversy, adding that the certificate should be analyzed to determine its authenticity.
Indeed, the Smoking Gun website has already compiled a list of inconsistencies found in the document, including asking, “If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?”
Meanwhile, World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah, who has been at the forefront of the birther movement, heavily promoting Jerome Corsi’s investigations into the matter along with his new book, Where’s The Birth Certificate?, reacted to the news by saying the birth certificate “raises as many questions as it answers”.
At the center of the storm is the argument about whether the fact that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, which is confirmed on the document released by the White House today, makes Obama ineligible to become president because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
“Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens,” reports WND, meaning that the document released by the White House today could even lead to proving Obama’s ineligibility.
“The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama’s eligibility in 2008, without any basis. It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers,” Farah said today.
Some political commentators have hastily insisted that the release of the document means, “The “birther” movement is now dead as a political force,” a rush to judgment given the fact that the White House’s direct involvement now means the entire controversy will only continue to generate attention.
Since the American people have been habitually lied to about everything under the sun, with trust in government at an all time low, a PDF file put out directly by the Obama administration itself isn’t going to make the furore die down at all, and will only lead to claims that the document is a carefully crafted fake.
Obama’s long form birth certificate – http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Correspondence with the Hawaii State Department of Health can be seen here (PDF).
Full Article (With Links) infowars.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Something that seems odd to me is spending $2,000,000 in attorney fees, fighting the release of his birth certificate.
Why did he do that?
Did he give up his U.S. citizenship to become an Indonesian citizen?
What is his real name?
Infowars.com
April 27, 2011
Despite some political commentators insisting that the White House release of what it claims to be Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate represents the end of the “crazy birther fringe” movement, those who most fiercely pushed doubts surrounding the president’s eligibility are not convinced.
While presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump welcomed the release of the document, he was quick to cast suspicion as to why it took so long and if the certificate was even genuine.
Trump said it was “amazing” that the document surfaced “all of a sudden” after he had begun asking questions about the controversy, adding that the certificate should be analyzed to determine its authenticity.
Indeed, the Smoking Gun website has already compiled a list of inconsistencies found in the document, including asking, “If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?”
Meanwhile, World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah, who has been at the forefront of the birther movement, heavily promoting Jerome Corsi’s investigations into the matter along with his new book, Where’s The Birth Certificate?, reacted to the news by saying the birth certificate “raises as many questions as it answers”.
At the center of the storm is the argument about whether the fact that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, which is confirmed on the document released by the White House today, makes Obama ineligible to become president because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
“Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens,” reports WND, meaning that the document released by the White House today could even lead to proving Obama’s ineligibility.
“The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama’s eligibility in 2008, without any basis. It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers,” Farah said today.
Some political commentators have hastily insisted that the release of the document means, “The “birther” movement is now dead as a political force,” a rush to judgment given the fact that the White House’s direct involvement now means the entire controversy will only continue to generate attention.
Since the American people have been habitually lied to about everything under the sun, with trust in government at an all time low, a PDF file put out directly by the Obama administration itself isn’t going to make the furore die down at all, and will only lead to claims that the document is a carefully crafted fake.
Obama’s long form birth certificate – http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Correspondence with the Hawaii State Department of Health can be seen here (PDF).
Full Article (With Links) infowars.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Something that seems odd to me is spending $2,000,000 in attorney fees, fighting the release of his birth certificate.
Why did he do that?
Did he give up his U.S. citizenship to become an Indonesian citizen?
What is his real name?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Kate Middleton’s Charming Smile
Kate Middleton and Prince William’s royal wedding is coming in over a week, turning the normal Kate into a fully fledged Princess and a media frenzy across the globe. The couple will tie a knot at London's Westminster Abbey on Friday April 29 2011. Prince William and Kate both went to The University of St Andrews in Scotland and their friendship later blossomed into romantic relationship. The couple dated several years, broke up, back again together and announced their long-awaited engagement.
The upcoming royal wedding not only cheers Britain but make the whole world go mad as well. The interesting fact is that Kate Middleton has been dazzling the whole Britain with elegant manner, distinctive style and a charming style. Especially, Kate’s smile has been the target for any paparazzi.
Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton make their public appearance to the Witton Country Park in Darwen, north western England. Some little rain can not stop Kate from smiling to the crowd.
Prince William and Ms. Kate made their way to a friend’s wedding in Cheltenham.
Kate and William in the official photo for their engagement. The photo is taken by Mario Testino.
The couple visited St. Andrews University in Fife, Scotland to celebrate the 600th anniversary year.
The prince and bride-to-be first met in this university.
Kate’s smile eases the distance between the royal bride and British residents.
Kate attends the City Hall Belfast in Northern Ireland.
William’s fiancée Kate Middleton shows her charming smile when they pay a visit to Naming Ceremony and Service of Dedication for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution's new Atlantic 85 Lifeboat.
Pit-bull owners may get reprieve
HOUMA — Nicki Breaux became a pit-bull owner by default when no rescue group had room for the now 1-year-old Buster Brown. The dog was found beaten and abandoned five months ago in someone’s yard, said his 28-year-old foster mom.
Breaux has been keeping tabs on a Terrebonne debate over a proposed law targeting pit bulls.
“I don’t think that a particular breed of dog is more vicious than another breed,” Breaux said. “It really has to do with training, socialization and the pet owner. … Any dog can bite, any dog can attack and, given the right situation, any dog can kill.”
Dealing with dangerous pit and pit mixes is a sensitive topic for owners like Breaux, but Terrebonne Parish lawmakers say something needs to be done to combat a rash of local pit-bull attacks.
The debate was rehashed at Monday’s Parish Council committee meetings, but no decision was made. Members plan to consider an alternative proposal from local animal-control officials that addresses vicious dogs, rather than a specific breed. That proposal is to be presented at the May 9 committee meetings.
houmatoday.com
Pit-bull owners may get reprieve
HOUMA — Nicki Breaux became a pit-bull owner by default when no rescue group had room for the now 1-year-old Buster Brown. The dog was found beaten and abandoned five months ago in someone’s yard, said his 28-year-old foster mom.
Breaux has been keeping tabs on a Terrebonne debate over a proposed law targeting pit bulls.
“I don’t think that a particular breed of dog is more vicious than another breed,” Breaux said. “It really has to do with training, socialization and the pet owner. … Any dog can bite, any dog can attack and, given the right situation, any dog can kill.”
Dealing with dangerous pit and pit mixes is a sensitive topic for owners like Breaux, but Terrebonne Parish lawmakers say something needs to be done to combat a rash of local pit-bull attacks.
The debate was rehashed at Monday’s Parish Council committee meetings, but no decision was made. Members plan to consider an alternative proposal from local animal-control officials that addresses vicious dogs, rather than a specific breed. That proposal is to be presented at the May 9 committee meetings.
houmatoday.com
Royal Wedding Exposed
TheAlexJonesChannel
April 25, 2011
Alex Jones breaks the spell surrounding British royalty and Prince William’s supposed fairytale wedding. The House of Windsor name did not surface until the WWI-era, when they opted to drop Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to keep the British from focusing on their German overlords.
The U.S. fought a war of independence against the British control of its government and economy, yet modern day Americans fawn over the royal family, whom they identify with. This is the result of deliberate social engineering campaigns to build celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical gang that has led and funded Eugenics, carbon taxes, population reduction and much more.
April 25, 2011
Alex Jones breaks the spell surrounding British royalty and Prince William’s supposed fairytale wedding. The House of Windsor name did not surface until the WWI-era, when they opted to drop Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to keep the British from focusing on their German overlords.
The U.S. fought a war of independence against the British control of its government and economy, yet modern day Americans fawn over the royal family, whom they identify with. This is the result of deliberate social engineering campaigns to build celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical gang that has led and funded Eugenics, carbon taxes, population reduction and much more.
Royal Wedding Exposed
TheAlexJonesChannel
April 25, 2011
Alex Jones breaks the spell surrounding British royalty and Prince William’s supposed fairytale wedding. The House of Windsor name did not surface until the WWI-era, when they opted to drop Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to keep the British from focusing on their German overlords.
The U.S. fought a war of independence against the British control of its government and economy, yet modern day Americans fawn over the royal family, whom they identify with. This is the result of deliberate social engineering campaigns to build celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical gang that has led and funded Eugenics, carbon taxes, population reduction and much more.
April 25, 2011
Alex Jones breaks the spell surrounding British royalty and Prince William’s supposed fairytale wedding. The House of Windsor name did not surface until the WWI-era, when they opted to drop Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to keep the British from focusing on their German overlords.
The U.S. fought a war of independence against the British control of its government and economy, yet modern day Americans fawn over the royal family, whom they identify with. This is the result of deliberate social engineering campaigns to build celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical gang that has led and funded Eugenics, carbon taxes, population reduction and much more.
Monday, April 25, 2011
kate midlleton wedding dress
When Queen Victoria chose it for her white wedding dress in 1840 - and remains - the quintessential color of western bridal jewelry.
Although the dress Kate Middleton with Prince William Friday married in Westminster Abbey may not be to create long, wake up, it will be the most talk about aspects of their wedding day and is almost certainly leave a mark on wedding dresses.
"Every time someone gets married in a royalty-free, certainly have an impact of fashion," said Sandra Gonzales Gonzales of Bridal Boutique in Lodi.
In Stockton's Bliss Bridal Salon, Tammie Dimas agreed.
"I definitely think so," she said. "Actually, you can see a lot of interest Chelsea Clinton.
The former first daughter, whose wedding was in August, wearing a dress of silk organza strapless Vera Wang designed and decorated with sparkling wings.
"They are not asking for" costume Chelsea Clinton, but they are at waist Pearl look interested, and this is where he came from, "said Dimas.
From Middleton and Prince William gave his commitment in November, which look like speculation about their dress and who will have a swirled design. Until we know for sure, here are some ideas three San Joaquin County wedding experts.
kate midlleton wedding dress
kate midlleton wedding dress
kate midlleton wedding dress
Contact reporter Jennifer Torres at (209) 546-8252 or jtorres@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com / parentingblog.
Gonzalez Bridal Boutique Lodi
Concept: contemporary fairy tales. said: "She is a very modern man," store owner Sandra Gonzales. "But she has to go to the heritage."
Dress: Gonzales chose two, both by the designer Robin Jillian. The ceremony, in a more conservative dress Taft with a deck of decline, embroidered lace and Swarovski crystal detailing for some luster. "This is not to be ostentatious," said Gonzales. "I think they are strictly limited in time." Dress has the same silhouette collection - with a corset with a skirt, low waist - but the strapless neckline with embroidery, baby, and all silver.
Why it works: Both dresses are decorations on the hips, which Gonzales said birds like hats and headgear Middleton often wears. "Every bride should always be a part of their personality in the clothes," she said.
Bliss Bridal Salon, Stockton
The concept of a piece of the statement. "Not everyone can wear this dress," owner Tammie Dimas. "It has a strong personality and she definitely knows that"
Dress: a strapless gown with mermaid silhouette with Justin Alexander. The dress is the silhouette, knee height, where it explodes in a dramatic, floor length skirt with tulle and decorated with silk flowers.
Why it works: "When I think about it, I can not help but think her clothes on the day he fell in love with her," said Dimas. Dimas was the same slip Middleton in 2002 charity fashion show at St Andrews University, where she and Prince William were pupils wore concerned. Dress in the last auction sold more than $ 125,000. "This is a very modern look."
J & K Creations, Stockton
Concept: discreet luxury. said: "There is nothing exaggerated," Jennifer Gomez. Her mother is the owner of the Miracle Mile Shops and Gomez said she was asked by a number of formal wear. "It's simple and elegant."
Dress: traditional satin dress with a train-line cathedral length from Casablanca Bridal features hand beading at the neckline and waist. Chevron beads in a pattern repeated throughout the skirt.
Why it works: "I like to rope," said Gomez. "It catches the light. It is not too much, but it will look like a princess.
Contact reporter Jennifer Torres at (209) 546-8252 or jtorres@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com / parentingblog.
Although the dress Kate Middleton with Prince William Friday married in Westminster Abbey may not be to create long, wake up, it will be the most talk about aspects of their wedding day and is almost certainly leave a mark on wedding dresses.
"Every time someone gets married in a royalty-free, certainly have an impact of fashion," said Sandra Gonzales Gonzales of Bridal Boutique in Lodi.
In Stockton's Bliss Bridal Salon, Tammie Dimas agreed.
"I definitely think so," she said. "Actually, you can see a lot of interest Chelsea Clinton.
The former first daughter, whose wedding was in August, wearing a dress of silk organza strapless Vera Wang designed and decorated with sparkling wings.
"They are not asking for" costume Chelsea Clinton, but they are at waist Pearl look interested, and this is where he came from, "said Dimas.
From Middleton and Prince William gave his commitment in November, which look like speculation about their dress and who will have a swirled design. Until we know for sure, here are some ideas three San Joaquin County wedding experts.
Contact reporter Jennifer Torres at (209) 546-8252 or jtorres@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com / parentingblog.
Gonzalez Bridal Boutique Lodi
Concept: contemporary fairy tales. said: "She is a very modern man," store owner Sandra Gonzales. "But she has to go to the heritage."
Dress: Gonzales chose two, both by the designer Robin Jillian. The ceremony, in a more conservative dress Taft with a deck of decline, embroidered lace and Swarovski crystal detailing for some luster. "This is not to be ostentatious," said Gonzales. "I think they are strictly limited in time." Dress has the same silhouette collection - with a corset with a skirt, low waist - but the strapless neckline with embroidery, baby, and all silver.
Why it works: Both dresses are decorations on the hips, which Gonzales said birds like hats and headgear Middleton often wears. "Every bride should always be a part of their personality in the clothes," she said.
Bliss Bridal Salon, Stockton
The concept of a piece of the statement. "Not everyone can wear this dress," owner Tammie Dimas. "It has a strong personality and she definitely knows that"
Dress: a strapless gown with mermaid silhouette with Justin Alexander. The dress is the silhouette, knee height, where it explodes in a dramatic, floor length skirt with tulle and decorated with silk flowers.
Why it works: "When I think about it, I can not help but think her clothes on the day he fell in love with her," said Dimas. Dimas was the same slip Middleton in 2002 charity fashion show at St Andrews University, where she and Prince William were pupils wore concerned. Dress in the last auction sold more than $ 125,000. "This is a very modern look."
J & K Creations, Stockton
Concept: discreet luxury. said: "There is nothing exaggerated," Jennifer Gomez. Her mother is the owner of the Miracle Mile Shops and Gomez said she was asked by a number of formal wear. "It's simple and elegant."
Dress: traditional satin dress with a train-line cathedral length from Casablanca Bridal features hand beading at the neckline and waist. Chevron beads in a pattern repeated throughout the skirt.
Why it works: "I like to rope," said Gomez. "It catches the light. It is not too much, but it will look like a princess.
Contact reporter Jennifer Torres at (209) 546-8252 or jtorres@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com / parentingblog.
Agenda 21
Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development, and was created through the United Nations. It is the blueprint for depopulation and total control, under the banner of saving the environment. It is like the head of a beast that has thousands of tentacles, originating from the United Nations.
The 3 primary tools that are used are:
* Man-made global warming
* Water shortages
* Endangered Species Act
We all want clean air, water, land and food, but phony environmentalism is designed to create fear in order to implement the policies of tyranny. For example, the Globalists used global warming fear mongering in order to usher in the Cap & Trade and carbon tax schemes without debate.
The Globalists use governments and other major groups (NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations) to force their policies. When you understand Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, you can recognize it in your neighborhood. Because the collectivists' battle to take control is from 'Global to Local', you can affect the world by taking action locally when you understand the rules and tools they use.
Because of the magnitude and depth of this UN program, many people can't believe Agenda 21 is true. Or they have their beliefs so firmly rooted in environmental propaganda, that they dismiss the destructive policies of Agenda 21. Or they believe it's just a "conspiracy theory".
Agenda 21 is not a "conspiracy theory", it is an Action Plan. Sustainable Development is beyond theory and is in the process of implementation in your community right now. The UN Convention on Biodiversity Treaty is proof of the UN backed action plan: it was a piece of legislation designed as a blank check to abolish private property. It was struck down in the Senate in 1994.
Agenda 21
Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development, and was created through the United Nations. It is the blueprint for depopulation and total control, under the banner of saving the environment. It is like the head of a beast that has thousands of tentacles, originating from the United Nations.
The 3 primary tools that are used are:
* Man-made global warming
* Water shortages
* Endangered Species Act
We all want clean air, water, land and food, but phony environmentalism is designed to create fear in order to implement the policies of tyranny. For example, the Globalists used global warming fear mongering in order to usher in the Cap & Trade and carbon tax schemes without debate.
The Globalists use governments and other major groups (NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations) to force their policies. When you understand Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, you can recognize it in your neighborhood. Because the collectivists' battle to take control is from 'Global to Local', you can affect the world by taking action locally when you understand the rules and tools they use.
Because of the magnitude and depth of this UN program, many people can't believe Agenda 21 is true. Or they have their beliefs so firmly rooted in environmental propaganda, that they dismiss the destructive policies of Agenda 21. Or they believe it's just a "conspiracy theory".
Agenda 21 is not a "conspiracy theory", it is an Action Plan. Sustainable Development is beyond theory and is in the process of implementation in your community right now. The UN Convention on Biodiversity Treaty is proof of the UN backed action plan: it was a piece of legislation designed as a blank check to abolish private property. It was struck down in the Senate in 1994.
Stylish and Affordable Summer Wedding Dresses 2011
We can not say it would be prudent to lead a comfortable life of marriage, marriage, only that everything that happened at this wedding, both bride and groom will remember. Successful marriage is not to do without nice clothes. In this case, choosing the right dress is the key to a memorable wedding.
Some potential brides can say they have many opportunities to purchase a wedding dress or rent long or short, silk or satin, pink or white, expensive and cheap. Most expect a completely new and unique clothes to the elegance and personality of the show. Cost is a big problem. To resolve this problem, Shenzhen Wuzhou Trading Co. International Changlian specially wide range of wedding dresses, Other Ones like evening dresses, prom dresses and underwear with high quality and competitive prices with promotion to the 1st of May entered.
Shopping online saves a lot of trouble for customers purchasing over the slot. There is no fear of traffic to measure at the time of booking, and go and get to the final dress. On the other hand, buying a dress and avoid the hassle to rent, with tight deadlines and high compensation for damage or wear. For online shopping, customers need only inform us about the color and size of the waist, chest and waist or additional information. Here is a detailed diagram of all colors and sizes to customers further confirmation included. Until everything is well informed about what customers need to do is spend time in games, work and travel or trade name of the package.
Wedding Dresses 2011
Wedding Dresses 2011
Wedding Dresses 2011
Some potential brides can say they have many opportunities to purchase a wedding dress or rent long or short, silk or satin, pink or white, expensive and cheap. Most expect a completely new and unique clothes to the elegance and personality of the show. Cost is a big problem. To resolve this problem, Shenzhen Wuzhou Trading Co. International Changlian specially wide range of wedding dresses, Other Ones like evening dresses, prom dresses and underwear with high quality and competitive prices with promotion to the 1st of May entered.
Shopping online saves a lot of trouble for customers purchasing over the slot. There is no fear of traffic to measure at the time of booking, and go and get to the final dress. On the other hand, buying a dress and avoid the hassle to rent, with tight deadlines and high compensation for damage or wear. For online shopping, customers need only inform us about the color and size of the waist, chest and waist or additional information. Here is a detailed diagram of all colors and sizes to customers further confirmation included. Until everything is well informed about what customers need to do is spend time in games, work and travel or trade name of the package.
Types Of Hair Accessories To Adorn Your Tresses
If you are looking to add a final delicate touch to your party wear, hair accessories are something that you can definitely opt for. They come in an array of attractive shapes, size and styles like cute pins, clips, ruffles, beads, diamonds and many more which helps in lending a bright finishing touch to your lookup.
As suggested above, they come in various types and styles. So, it is important on your part to make the correct selection as every product is not suited for every occasion. It should differ as per the occasion. Just for instance, feathers, tiaras etc. are the perfect complement to western style outfits like evening gown or cocktail dresses and others of the similar variety. It may really look clumsy if you happen to use these with a traditional Indian outfit. Thus, it is essential to know what to use and where to use.
To add to your looks, try to use a hair accessories which color is matching with that of your outfit, purse and footwear. Another key point to remember is to ensure that these accessories fit comfortably and are not too tight or rough and do not pull your tresses too hard.
Headbands- They can be used for almost every style, whether it is a ponytail or a bun or something else. They are ideal for holding back any pieces of hair that will not go up. Some of the modern day innovations like a thick headband are of great value to those having long tresses and intending to wear it down. They are available in different colours and styles ranging from white to black.
Barrettes-Functionally, they are quite similar to headbands. They, too are available in different fashionable shapes and design.
If you want to use one to hold a part of your hair to the side or the center, you can use a clip. These hair clips serve as ponytail holder. Irrespective of where you plan to use them, barrettes do play an instrumental role in adding to your style statement.
As suggested above, they come in various types and styles. So, it is important on your part to make the correct selection as every product is not suited for every occasion. It should differ as per the occasion. Just for instance, feathers, tiaras etc. are the perfect complement to western style outfits like evening gown or cocktail dresses and others of the similar variety. It may really look clumsy if you happen to use these with a traditional Indian outfit. Thus, it is essential to know what to use and where to use.
To add to your looks, try to use a hair accessories which color is matching with that of your outfit, purse and footwear. Another key point to remember is to ensure that these accessories fit comfortably and are not too tight or rough and do not pull your tresses too hard.
Headbands- They can be used for almost every style, whether it is a ponytail or a bun or something else. They are ideal for holding back any pieces of hair that will not go up. Some of the modern day innovations like a thick headband are of great value to those having long tresses and intending to wear it down. They are available in different colours and styles ranging from white to black.
Barrettes-Functionally, they are quite similar to headbands. They, too are available in different fashionable shapes and design.
If you want to use one to hold a part of your hair to the side or the center, you can use a clip. These hair clips serve as ponytail holder. Irrespective of where you plan to use them, barrettes do play an instrumental role in adding to your style statement.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Most Beautiful Princesses and Queens in History
The website beautifulpeople.com has just released its list of the most beautiful royals in history based on the survey of 127,000 people. According to the list, Princess Grace of Monaco, an Oscar-winning actress Grace Kelly is named as the most beautiful princess ever. The second place is Queen Rania of Jordan. Especially, the bride-to-be Kate Middleton, who will become part of the Royal Family when she marries Prince William on April 29, will be one among the most beautiful princesses in history at the third place. Other beauties who are also honored in top ten are Princess Charlotte of Monaco, Princess Gayatri Devi, Princess Madeline of Sweden, Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, Princess Margaret and Princess Masako of Japan.
Kate Middleton surpasses her husband's late mother, Princess Diana in the list of the most beautiful princesses and queens in history
American talented actress Grace Kelly, who married Prince Monaco Rainier III in 1956, tops the poll as the most beautiful royal in history with 91 per cent.
Princess Charlotte of Monaco is named at the fifth place with 76 per cent
Princess Gayatri Devi, who died in 2009 at the age of 90, is recognized as one of ten most beautiful royals in history at the sixth place with 75 per cent
Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is named at the eighth place with 72 per cent
Princess Diana, who is well-known for not only her attractive beauty but also a fashion icon worldwide, is honored in the forth place in the list with 82 per cent.
Queen Rania of Jordan, one of the most powerfully influential women in the world, ranks the second place with 90 per cent
Princess Margaret, the younger sister of Elizabeth II, ranks the ninth place in the list with 70 per cent
The seventh place is Princess Madeline of Sweden with 74 per cent
Princess Masako of Japan stands at the tenth place in the list with 68 per cent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)