Big Business, BIG Winner at SPP Summit----Quite a meaty diet of information here.
|
Submitted by: rea1001.blogspot.com  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
http://newworldordermustbestopped.com/DanasBlog1.html
Type of Content: Article Big Business, BIG Winner at SPP Summit By Dana Gabriel The SPP is the brainchild of business and political elites who wish to advance North American integration. In June of 2006, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was launched, and is the only formal advisory board in the SPP. The NACC represents private corporate interests, and through the SPP, transnational corporate rights are being further empowered. In February of 2007, the NACC made 51 proposals to SPP negotiators. They are essentially formulating policy and using the SPP to lay the foundation for a North American Union. The NACC is now actively promoting energy privatization in Mexico. It is the multinational corporations who have the most to gain from the SPP. Bruce Campbell, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, lays out just how the SPP structure operates. He said, “Business conveys its demand, the politicians respond, consensus is reached, and civil servants implement. This takes the privatization of public policy-making to a new level.” Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians said, “These corporate recommendations are going directly to the respective bureaucracies, and they are being pushed heavily.” Before the Leader Summit, the NACC released a report where they stated, “Our most critical request to the leaders is for them to ensure that the SPP remains a dynamic and effective path forward for trilateral and bilateral co-operation.” There was some fear that this agenda might be further stalled or replaced with something else. Not to worry, because here is what Bush had to say about the NACC’s recommendations, “I’m looking forward to hearing them, and I’m looking forward to implementing them.” Mexican President Calderon also said, “we need to work within the North American Competitiveness Council, where the three leaders agreed we fully need to support the work of this Competitiveness Council.” It sounds like the SPP is back on track, and the NACC and corporate interests will have even more clout. Recent national polls reflect that the majority of Canadians and Americans wish to retain their sovereignty and reject the secrecy surrounding the SPP. I guess most people think it is a big deal when powerful and influential corporate elites and politicians meet in private, plotting the destruction of the country. Dismantling of the borders will allow for the freer flow of goods and cheap labor, which will increase corporate profits at the expense of our sovereignty and prosperity. The big loser of the SPP summit is transparency in government and the will of the people. The transfer of power from our elected representatives to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats is being further accelerated. We must continue to resist the North American Union and the complete corporate takeover of the continent. April 23, 2008 Colombia FTA Based on Failed NAFTA Model By Dana Gabriel The Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed in November of 2006, and if ratified, would expand NAFTA to the region. In fact, it would be the largest Western Hemisphere pact since NAFTA. Past free trade deals have failed to live up to the promise of prosperity, and have served to further benefit multinational corporations. This one appears to be no different. In an effort to pass the Colombia FTA, President Bush used the national security card much like he did with CAFTA. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flexed a little muscle, passing a motion to exempt the accord from the 90-day legislative deadline. This had many opponents of the agreement prematurely celebrating, and news headlines stating it was dead. In reality, all the vote did was delay matters for the time being. The Democrats are on record as saying that they don’t want to kill the accord, and only wish to postpone and use it as leverage. This delay could affect the approval of pending trade agreements with South Korea and Panama. There have been some question marks surrounding Pelosi’s leadership, and there are accusations that her latest move amounts to nothing more than playing politics. As it stands right now, the accord would have little chance of passing. Some have suggested that in actuality, her actions might insure its future passage. She might succeed in getting a few concessions, and proclaim that the Democrats along with U.S. and Colombian workers have won some major victory. What shouldn’t be overlooked in this power move is the constitutional authority that Congress still has over branches of the federal government, but all too often fails to exercise. The Colombia FTA threatens U.S. sovereignty, and would allow foreign corporations to challenge food safety regulations and environmental protections as barriers to trade. It further promotes privatization and deregulation of key public services. There has been a push for Latin American governments to sell national water resources to private corporations. This trade agreement also provides these corporations with another source of cheap labor and threatens American workers by placing them in competition with Colombia ’s lower wages. This will lead to further depressed wages and the loss of more jobs. Despite assurances to the contrary, it undermines labor and environmental standards. The Colombian government has one of the worst human rights violations records in the region, and has come under fire for its links to paramilitary death squads. It is one of the most dangerous places for trade unionists, as many have been killed. Promoting human rights should be a priority, and corrupt and scandalous regimes should not be rewarded unless there are dramatic changes. Many of President Alvaro Uribe’s closest political associates and members of his family have been sent to prison or are under investigation for ties to paramilitary death squads and drug traffickers. This is a government that does not value human rights, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. This accord would give the Colombian government international approval and recognition, and it sends the wrong message. The Colombia FTA is part of the destructive cycle of other trade deals that have sacrificed more then they have gained. It would allow for the further domination of U.S. trade policies by multinational corporations, and the surrender of more sovereignty. It is another move for more central economic and political governance. This is also taking place with the continued integration of Canada , the U.S. , and Mexico into a North American Union. The Colombia FTA is essentially taking the Security and Prosperity Partnership structure to Latin America , and will be used as a stepping stone to the FTAA and the creation of a Pan-American Union. April 17, 2008 Saving and Expanding the SPP By Dana Gabriel The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, recently published the report Saving the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership: The Case for a North American Regulatory Area. Not only do they want to save the SPP, but they wish to expand and speed up the process of deeper integration. This could include replacing the SPP with the North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA). As if changing the name would alter its objectives and excuse the treasonous surrender of our sovereignty. Political Scientist and co-author of the report, Alexander Moen, acknowledges that NASRA would include further economic integration beyond free trade, but tries to ease concerns that it would not lead to political integration. The SPP is already merging our health, food safety, energy, and environmental regulations into a North American structure. If the SPP was the next step to NAFTA, why wouldn’t the next logical move be to expand from economic and security to include political integration using the European Union as the model? Proponents of the SPP believe that it is misunderstood, and Moens said, “This confusion around what the SPP stands for has skewed public perception. Governments need to redefine the process and articulate specific goals for partnership.” He went on to say, “Somehow a combination of left-wing economic nationalists in Canada and right-wing protectionists in the US have turned the SPP into a supranationalist conspiracy theory.” The level of desperation to save the SPP has many still clinging to the North American Union as being a fabricated conspiracy. This is a blatant attempt to mislead and deceive the public. The report also calls upon further expanding the role of business inside the SPP process. Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians said, “These recommendations, put into government practice, would intensify the privatization of public policy envisioned in the SPP.” This would mean putting more power into the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. First of all, a mandate from the people is required in order to proceed any further, and there should more public involvement and governmental accountability. All those involved need to be honest and open about the true intentions of the SPP. The SPP has been a public relation’s nightmare and is unraveling. It may have outlived its usefulness under its current structure. Still, many wish to save, expand, and continue to use it as a vehicle to further advance a North American Union. April 16, 2008 Majority of Canadians Reject SPP and Deeper Integration By Dana Gabriel In the poll, a whopping 86 percent of Canadians agree that the SPP should be debated in the House of Commons and submitted to a parliamentary vote. Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said of the SPP, “while corporations have been given a seat at the negotiating table, the Canadian government has never asked the public, how they feel about it.” The SPP’s fate should be decided by the people in the form of a referendum. Another part of the poll showed that 87 percent agree that Canada should set its own independent environmental, health, and safety standards, while 89 percent want an energy policy guaranteeing Canadian supply and protecting the environment. In addition, 88 percent of Canadians want a comprehensive national water policy that bans bulk exports of fresh water and recognizes water as a basic human right. The SPP’s objectives include removing barriers and securing U.S. access to Canadian natural resources. One half of Alberta’s oil sands production is already U.S. owned. The SPP will lead to the further corporate takeover of Canada’s resources. The U.S. government, along with trinational elites in the private sector, will benefit from a North American resource pact. In April of last year, the North American Future 2025 Project met and discussed transfers, consumption, and artificial diversion of bulk waters. Leaked documents obtained by the Council of Canadians prove that the Canadian government along with some business elites are actively discussing and pursuing bulk water exports. Connie Fogal, the leader of the Canadian Action Party, has said that the SPP will begin, “the accelerated extraction and delivery of Canadian oil and water resources to the U.S. economy.” It is no secret that the U.S. has long since coveted Canada’s fresh water, and once this process starts, it would be next to impossible to turn off the tap. What Canada desperately needs is a national water policy that would ban bulk water exports. Canadians need to be aware of the SPP’s plan to integrate and hand over more control and access of their natural resources to the Americans. A sovereign independent Canada must put their future needs ahead of U.S. corporate interests. April 9, 2008 Repackaging, Renaming, Relaunching the SPP By Dana Gabriel There is little doubt that the SPP is in need of a drastic makeover in order to give it a new lease on life. The U.S. think tank Hudson Institute has stated, “it may ultimately be necessary to redesign and relaunch a new process to take up the work of the SPP under a new acronym.” This follows a recent report by the Fraser Institute which called for expanding and fast tracking the SPP. Co-author of the report, Alexander Moens, said of the SPP, “the time has come to rebrand the talks and give them a clear mandate.” The report also called for changing the SPP’s name to the North American Standards and Regulations Area (NASRA). Could there also be a push to squeeze Mexico out of the SPP? The Canadian think tank C.D. Howe has recommended a new bilateral trade initiative between the U.S. and Canada. Former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Derek Burney also seemed to echo the same sentiments when he said, “Attempts to ‘triangulate’ in recent years, by bringing in Mexico, have little substance and allowed attention to be diverted from more pressing bilateral concerns.” It is unclear if this would mean the end of the SPP as we now know it. This could also be a huge distraction to confuse and shift the debate. The reality is that through NAFTA and the SPP, much integration has already been achieved. The SPP might be doomed, but the push for a North American Union is not dead and obviously Mexico remains an important part of this agenda. Interest in the SPP on the part of all participants appears to have declined, but incremental integration into a North American Union continues. In many ways, their agenda has been stalled, but we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security. The proponents of a North American Union are simply retooling and regrouping. The SPP Leader Summit could be used to plot and launch a different course of action with the same goals and end results. Make no mistake about it - the SPP remains a priority to the global elite. We must put it to rest for good and not have it rear its ugly head again under a new name or entity. The North American Union agenda is in trouble. Let’s make the SPP Leader Summit in New Orleans the last one. April 2, 2008 NAFTA Countries to Introduce Simultaneous Legislation to Stop SPP By Dana Gabriel In addition, legislators have agreed to launch a Task Force to renegotiate NAFTA that will be chaired by NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian. It also includes U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the Honourable Yeidckol Polevnsky (Senator of Mexico State and Vice-president of the Mexican Senate) and the Honourable Victor Quintana (Deputy of the State Chihuahua, Mexico). This is all in an effort to overhaul NAFTA and make it a more fair trade deal. Julian will also be working with Kaptur and Mike Michaud (D-ME) to try and defeat the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Julian said, “The NDP has been campaigning across Canada to expose and stop the SPP. We’ve held over 20 public forums in more than twenty cities and a dozen more are being planned for the spring of 2008. These forums have been held to speak out on the grave concerns surrounding the SPP and to help ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast get informed and have their say. This trinational initiative with colleagues from the U.S. and Mexico takes us to a new stage in our fight to stop the SPP.” Discontent towards NAFTA is festering in Mexico, which has seen huge protests by farmers. Since 1994, one quarter of the rural population of Mexico and two million jobs have left the country. Mexican Senator Polevnsky said, “It is indispensable that legislators from all three North American partner countries work together to design an alternative project that takes into account each nations sovereignty, environmental protection, economic competitiveness, migration, and labor rights.” With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins recently acknowledged that he believes that it is too important to do away with or make any dramatic changes to. He pointed to the fact that, regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand. The SPP is an expansion of NAFTA, and is essentially the framework for a North American Union. On the heels of the next SPP Leader Summit that will be held in New Orleans on April 21 and 22, opposition towards a North American Union is growing in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The citizens of all three NAFTA countries must demand more transparency in regards to the SPP. Some believe that it might be better to scrap NAFTA and just start from scratch. The reality remains the same - in a North American Union, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico would cease to exist as sovereign nations. This is a decision that should not be left up to corporate elites, bureaucrats or politicians, but to the will of the people. March 20, 2008 Leader of CAP Calls for Referendum and General Strike Regarding SPP By Dana Gabriel CAP is demanding full disclosure of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In a recent video address, their leader Connie Fogal called for a referendum and general strike in regards to the SPP. A general strike might be hard to organize, but it would be an effective way of protesting and drawing further attention to this whole process of deeper integration. CAP is concerned, and rightfully so, that any parliamentary vote to try and stop the SPP would probably not succeed. After all, it was the Liberal Party under Paul Martin who began the SPP process, and under Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government, this agenda has only accelerated. CAP is absolutely correct that there needs to be a referendum concerning the SPP, as it should be the people who decide its fate and not politicians whose allegiances might lie elsewhere. CAP wants NAFTA replaced with a trade deal that places Canadians best interests ahead of those of multinational corporations. Fogal said that, “NAFTA was the beginning of the institutional, administrative restructuring of the three nations into a North American Union.” Many Canadians and Americans are taking action to further expose and stop the North American Union. Resolutions stating concerns about the SPP have recently been presented in Missouri House and Senate committees. This is all very encouraging, and with every small victory we are that much closer to defeating this agenda. The Canadian Action Party and their leader Connie Fogal need to be commended for their efforts in trying to stop the North American Union. Fogal said, “If Canada is to be restored to an independent, sovereign and democratic nation, if that is what you want, then your political leaders must take back control of our rules and procedures immediately into the hands of a democratic Parliament. They must act immediately to move the control of our government out of the hands of a cabinet apparatus and a bureaucracy that have abandoned their duty to the citizens and to the public good, and they must disembowel the corporate rule.” Integration into a North American Union is already happening, but there is still time to stop it if we act now. March 13, 2008 Obama and Clinton on Judicial Watch Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians List By Dana Gabriel Here’s what Judicial Watch had to say about Obama who made the list. “A Dishonorable Mention last year, Senator Obama moves onto the ten most wanted list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Tony Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections. It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.” Here’s what they had to say about Clinton. “In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.” The truth is that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. For those who might think that I am bashing the Democrats and signaling out Obama and Clinton, rest assured that Republicans are not immune to corruption. Former Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both cracked the top ten list as well. Although McCain did not make the list, there is more than enough dirt on him already. It is not surprising that Ron Paul’s name is no where to be found. Unfortunately, many are able to expose the corruption of the other party, but are complacent, ignorant, or blind to their own party’s corruption. The point is that you probably don’t get to this level in your political career without being severely compromised. There are more than enough skeletons in Obama’s, Clinton’s, and McCain’s closet to bring them down anytime. It is looking more like it will be Clinton or Obama as president. During the presidential campaign it is possible that McCain could self implode. There is also a chance that old and maybe even new scandals could be exposed, thus insuring a Democrat in the White House. Obama claims that he is the candidate for hope and change, but it appears as if little would really change if he is elected. The only thing that could change is there might be someone other than a Bush or a Clinton as president. March 1, 2008 Ron Paul Revolution: Let's Finish What We Started By Dana Gabriel With insurmountable odds we have put a dent in the establishments armor and have changed the rules and the political landscape forever. We are not alone and our voices will be heard. The power is in the people and together there is no limit to what we can accomplish. This movement was always more than about Ron Paul - it is about getting proactive and taking action on our own at a grassroots level. We have him to thank for all the ideas and issues he has injected into the campaign that would have never otherwise seen the light of day. This has been a learning curve and along the way some mistakes have been made, but this will only help us in the long run and make us stronger. Real everlasting change will not come easy, but it is attainable. This is not the end but the beginning, the first stages of this peaceful revolution. This whole election season, I have likened Ron Paul's campaign to the Star Wars movie, A New Hope, and in particular a certain scene. During the lightsaber duel on the Death Star, Obi-Wan Kenobi says to Darth Vader, “You can't win Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” We have not been defeated as this movement will go forward and continue to grow. We stand on the threshold of change, and by continuing to plant seeds we will win over more hearts and minds. Together we can and will take back this country - one district, one county, one city, one state, and one mind at a time. Thank you Ron Paul and supporters for giving America hope. Now let's finish what we started. February 24, 2008 Local British Columbia Council Passes Motion to Halt SPP By Dana Gabriel The motion passed reads as such, “the Council of the Village of New Denver supports the position of Alex Atamanenko, MP, B.C. Southern Interior, in calling on the Federal Government of Canada to stop further implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with the United States and Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, Parliamentary oversight, and consideration of its profound consequences on Canada's existence as a sovereign nation and its ability to adopt a autonomous and sustainable economic, social, and environmental policies, and urge the Government of Canada to conduct a transparent and accountable public debate of the SPP process, involving meaningful public consultation with civil society and full legislative review, including the work, recommendations and reports of all SPP working groups, and full debate and a vote in Parliament.” Some might view a small town passing such a motion as insignificant, but it could lead to a domino effect. Many U.S. states have already passed anti-North American Union resolutions. It is at a local, municipal, state, and provincial level where we might be most effective in further engaging this agenda. The groundswell of grassroots resentment towards a North American Union is growing in Canada. Demonstrations and protests were recently held all across the country against deeper integration. People are taking action, but despite their best efforts, there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding from the general public in regards to the SPP. Don't look to the Canadian mainstream media for help as they have been just as silent and complacent as their American counterparts on reporting on this agenda. It is up to activists, bloggers, and those in the alternative media to further expose the North American Union and force it into the mainstream. As individuals, we need to educate our co-workers, friends, and families. This also means our elected representatives, and we must hold them more accountable. There is no doubt that an informed public will rise up against this threat to our sovereignty. We must stand up to the globalist traitors and let them know that their efforts to destroy our country will not go unchallenged. In the end, it will take a coming together of concerned and informed citizens on both the left and the right if we are going to truly defeat the North American Union. February 17, 2008 NDP Tables Motion that Would Make SPP Working Groups More Accountable In his recent motion Julian said, “the government should ensure that Parliament is informed and consulted on the progress of each of the working groups of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America by mandating that each working group file with Parliament a quarterly report to be reviewed by the appropriate standing committee, which should include information on each working group meeting, specific issues discussed, status report on existing objectives, projects and agendas, including any new additional actions or projects decided on by the working groups, and an account of which stakeholders were consulted.” Upwards of 20 working groups along with over 300 agencies are quietly and with little or no scrutiny harmonizing regulations, writing policy initiative, and recommendations. They are integrating our laws into a North American structure, and by engaging in policy making they must be made more accountable. All to often, their activities go unnoticed without any proper public or governmental oversight. It is in the shadows that a North American Union is being forged by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats working side by side with the business elite. The whole SPP process lacks transparency, and this motion tabled by the NDP will hopefully shed more light on the working groups. The North American Union is being created incrementally, expanding upon NAFTA and using the SPP as its framework. While the NDP should be applauded for their efforts, this is just another step in exposing and defeating this agenda. A North American Union is being created, and it is the working groups that are laying the foundation for deeper integration. The only way to stop this agenda is to walk away from it, disband the working groups, and cancel any harmonization that might have already taken place. This is a greed-driven agenda, and if completed, it will represent the complete corporate takeover of North America, the end of our borders, sovereignty, and another step towards global governance. Ultimately it should be the people of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico who decide on a North American Union. January 27, 2008 The United Nations is Coming For Our Children By Dana Gabriel Children are being indoctrinated to view everything from a world perspective, and are being conditioned to conform to universal values, environmental standards, and a whole new global management system. This is all part of training children to be good little slaves, I mean good global citizens. In schools, collective thinking is strongly encouraged, and children are taught that there must always be unity and consensus. Group interaction is important, but it doesn't always have to end with everyone agreeing. Children are being made to see themselves as a group, where personal worth depends solely on service to the community and to the state. They are being desensitized to contrary values, and teaching is now more focused on feelings and emotions rather than facts and logic. They are being taught that morals and values are constantly changing, and that they need to establish a system that best suits them. There is no room for those who uphold their morals, including their parents. They are all viewed as intolerant and trying to impose their values on others. In this new system, a strong family unit is a threat, and there is no place for nationalism or individuality. Founded in 1945, the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been described as a propaganda machine for the UN and world government. In 1984, the late President Reagan withdrew from UNESCO and stated., “It has exhibited a hostility toward institutions of free society, especially a free market and a free press.” In 2003, President Bush brought the U.S. back into UNESCO, promising they had reformed for the better. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who opposed the decision, said, “UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a UN-based school curriculum for American schools.” Much of our education system is already UNESCO-orientated and in fact an almost worldwide curriculum has been archived. UNESCO seeks to be the school board of the world and is indoctrinating children for world government. Its first director, Julian Huxley, said of UNESCO, “The task is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.” In order to truly achieve this goal, they will have to destroy any feelings of nationalism and loyalty to one's country, and undermine any traditional family values, biblical principles, and other influences at home and in the confides of the family structure. To further acclimate itself, the UN has entered into partnership with Marvel Comics, where superheroes will be depicted working side by side with the world body. Millions of American school children will receive these comics for free. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is based on the same principles of the UN charter that rights and freedoms are granted by governments and institutions, and are conditional. In an article from 15 years ago, Phyllis Schlafly states that the convention, “is based on the concept that a child's rights originate with the UN Treaty itself or with the government. The logical conclusion is that a child would have no rights except those in the Treaty, and what government gives, government also can take away.” The whole UN framework and philosophy runs contrary to the Bill of Rights and to the Constitution. The UNCRC fails to cement a parent's right to make decisions for their own children. It is an assault on parental authority, and is a blank check for governmental interference in family affairs. It states that the government shall uphold and ensure children's rights to freedom of thought, religion, conscience, privacy, and rest and leisure. In Article 13 it says that, “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or though any other media of the child's choice.” This clearly undermines parental authority and seemingly grants children radical new rights. It is meant to further promote a child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance. This was never about protecting the children, and has given the UN more power over our lives. It is being selectively enforced in countries where the convention has been signed and ratified. In Belgian, homeschool parents must sign a document stating that they promise to rear their children in accordance with the UNCRC. Government inspectors decide whether or not families are complying to UN training. Those not following the criteria have their children sent to government schools. It appears as if homeschooling has become a UN-sponsored activity. In Germany, the state views homeschooling as a violation of a child's well being. The UNCRC gives the government the power to define and determine what is in a child's best interests. If it does not pertain to abuse or neglect, it has no business otherwise. The UNCRC transfers parental rights and responsibilities to the state and grants children dangerous freedoms. It was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, but has yet to be ratified. It lies dormant, but when the time is right, it could be dusted off much like the Law of the Sea Treaty was. Parents need to understand that the moment they send their children to public schools, they are surrendering a certain amount of authority and influence over their children. Values and principles installed by parents are being manipulated and pushed aside. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. Many are choosing to homeschool, but they are being demonized and are under attack. In places like Germany, homeschool parents are being fined, jailed, and in some cases are having their children taken away. There is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of our children. The social architects know that if they can shape and mold our children's minds, they will undoubtedly control the future. Rudy Giuliani's Losing Ways Continue Against Ron Paul By Dana Gabriel Giuliani's poor showings in the early contests are not because of a lack of trying. As a result, other candidates have been given more exposure and gained momentum. His strategy of seemingly abandoning early states and shifting money and resources to focus on Florida was done out of pure desperation. Florida has become a must win and could further cement his presidential campaign as one of the biggest busts in American political history. It could also turn out to be pure genius if he is able to win in Florida, and it would catapult him back into the race. There are reports that some of his staff are working without pay, and that his campaign is cash-strapped as contributions have all but dried up. In a last ditch effort to salvage his campaign and his pride, he is now proclaiming himself to be an agent of change, and is further attacking his opponents. Desperate times call for desperate measures. In Iowa, Giuliani finished with 4% of the vote, well behind Paul's 10%. In fact Paul spanked him with a 2-1 ratio in votes, even though Giuliani had made more visits to the state. In New Hampshire, it appears as if much of Giuliani's support went McCain's way. Giuliani spent almost as much money as the winner. He once again failed to reach double digits and finished with 9%, edging out Paul by only one percent. Then it was on to Michigan, which was another Giuliani disaster, whereas Paul garnered almost more votes than Thompson and Giuliani combined. Nevada saw Paul pull off a dramatic second place finish, picking up 13% of the vote as opposed to Giuliani's measly 4%. South Carolina turned into another embarrassing performance, and another loss to Paul. Giuliani's campaign is in free-fall mode, but is still banking on Florida and other voter-rich delegate states. A win in Florida would elevate and rejuvenate his campaign, but a loss would see it crash and burn and come to a screeching halt. A turning point in the Giulani campaign might have been his ill-fated attack on Paul over foreign policy in one of the earlier debates. Paul stated that American foreign policy was a major contributing factor leading to 9/11, but he never suggested that we invited the attacks. Giuliani urged Paul to retract his statement and claimed he had never heard of such a theory. He later stated that they hate us because of our freedom and our values. Paul did not back down, and questioned if Giuliani had ever read the 9/11 commission report, later holding a press conference where former CIA officials further backed up his statements. He issued a list of books for Giuliani to read on the subject. At the time, many pundits believed that Giuliani had delivered a knockout blow, and Mr. 9/11 looked strong and presidential. It may have been the highlight of his campaign, but a turning point in a negative way. It exposed Giuliani's lack of foreign policy knowledge and elevated Paul's status After more than six years, it appears as if Giuliani's opportunity to use the attacks and the whole fear of terrorism are gone. In fact, 9/11 has become his can of worms, and many accuse him of covering up the toxic dust scandal at ground zero. Others are angry for his decision to put firefighters and other victim's remains in landfills. Almost everywhere he goes, he is dogged by those who blame him for some of the firefighters deaths. There can be little doubt that Giuliani has used the 9/11 tragedies for personal profit and to launch his presidential bid. It is becoming obvious to many that he is no longer a viable candidate. In less then a month, Giuliani has gone from Republican front runner to a second tier candidate. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Like those who had earlier written off McCain, can Giuliani rekindle the magic? Anything less than a win in Florida would spell certain doom for his campaign. If Paul doesn't win the nomination, his revolution will have still succeeded, and we can forever look back with a smile on how he whooped Giuliani. January 13, 2008 Ron Paul is the Real Candidate for Change, Not Barack Obama By Dana Gabriel First I'd like to say that I have no axe to grind with Obama, and find some of the allegations brought against him petty and ridiculous. That having been said, for someone whose campaign is based on change, he is pretty vague on exactly what and how he would change things. Saying you are going to change things is mere words and empty promises. Real change requires plotting an entirely new course with ideas, specifics, firm policy initiatives, and it doesn't always come quickly. The truth is that behind all the rhetoric, Obama represents the status quo, and there is very little difference between himself and Hillary Clinton. Obama's two years in the Senate and thin resume means that he doesn't have that much political baggage. One can hardly dispute the fact that he lacks experience, is unproven, untested, and lacks critical wisdom and policy knowledge. Paul, on the other hand, has been advocating real change to our foreign policy, monetary policy, and the corporate welfare state for thirty years. He is well read, and there is no other candidate who studies political philosophy and economics more than he does. He has a distinguished voting record, upholds the constitution, and has been likened to the founding fathers. One's gender or race does not mark significant change, and I believe that Paul is the only candidate who can restore America. There are definitely some similarities between Paul and Obama. Both are promising change, enjoy huge support on the Internet, have grassroots appeal, and have struck a chord with young voters. After that, most of the similarities end. Obama is young, charismatic, smooth, and a great communicator whose words are captivating and intoxicating. He makes you feel good about yourself. For the most part, he has been a media darling, and some reporters have admitted bias on reporting about him objectively. It will take more than a certain look, an image cute phrases and catchy slogans to change things. The contrast is that Paul is a humble 72 year old constitutionalist, and is a model of consistency. He admits that he has limitations, but his message of freedom does not. For the most part, the mainstream media has tried to ignore and misrepresent Paul, his message, and his supporters. Paul has always championed civil liberties and voted against the Patriot and the Real ID Act. Meanwhile, Obama voted for the Real ID and to renew provisions of the Patriot Act. Paul doesn't sugarcoat things, and is one of the few politicians who acknowledges our overspending, the weak dollar, and the evils of the Federal Reserve. He also wants to eliminate income taxes and abolish the IRS. There is little doubt that there is an appetite for change. Ron Paul addressed this issue and said, “To me that means the only significant change we ought to have is get enough people in Washington that read the constitution, obey the constitution, do only things that we are allowed to do.” Ron Paul admits that there is very little difference between the mainstream candidates, Democrat or Republican. He said, “Foreign policy never changed. Domestic fiscal policy, the welfare entitlement system never changes.” For years, both parties have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. Both parties are supported by special interest groups, and many are waking up to the fact that the Democrats aren't going to save us either. Paul's support is diverse and transcends party lines. We don't have to choose the lesser of the evils, because with Paul we have the right man with the right message. He is shattering the fake left-right paradigm and dismantling the establishment. While most candidates including Obama grovel to AIPAC, Paul is not bought and paid for by any special interest groups, corporations, or countries. He is the only one of the top candidates in either party that doesn't have any connections or affiliation to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Obama gives speeches to CFR members and at CFR sponsored events. His top foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has intimate ties to both the CFR and co-founded the Trilateral Commission. Obama has tried to paint himself as an outsider, but has surrounded himself with consummate insiders and political heavy weights. It's always the same people behind the scenes. Both Obama and Paul are receiving the most contributions from military personnel for their respective parties. Out of the two, only Paul can be considered an anti-war candidate. Paul was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and the whole middle east almost immediately. He advocates a foreign policy of non-intervention. Obama says he would have voted against the Iraq war if he were in the Senate at the time, but has voted for continued funding of the war. He talks about a timetable for withdrawing main-combat forces in Iraq, but would then send more to Afghanistan. He has talked about possible missile strikes against Iran and military action against Pakistan. He would continue to expand the war on terror, and he supports preemptive strikes, increasing the size of our armed forces, and further militarization of the middle east. It is impossible to label Obama as an anti-war candidate, but it might be unfair to say that he is a warmonger. He is pro-military, and has demonstrated his willingness to maintain the U.S. as the world's police force. Obama as president would not bring about any radical shift in foreign policy. Barack Obama would bring about artificial change, and he is like window dressing to make something old and broken appear new and fixed. Ron Paul is like a big wrecking ball, with the words change on it. He understands the role of government, and would limit its size and scope. Limited government would bring about more liberty, and that is what America was founded on. We would return a more constitutionally-sound monetary and foreign policy. There would be no more nation building, foreign entanglements, and trying to police the world. Hillary Clinton is still the anointed one, and will probably win the presidential nomination for the Democrats. There is a good chance that Obama will be on her ticket. A woman president and a black vice-president, with the Democrats back in power, that might be the only change we get. Maybe Obama is the insurance policy in case Paul wins the Republican nomination, or runs as a third-party candidate. Ron Paul is the real candidate for change, and Barack Obama is a tool of the elite. January 8, 2008 Open Borders, the NAU, and the Betrayal of the American People By Dana Gabriel The proponents of NAFTA said that it would bring prosperity to Mexico and thus ease illegal immigration into the United States. It has been an economic disaster and has not benefited the average Mexican, nor has it solved our illegal immigration woes, but has added to them. Mexico is marred in a culture of corruption, and this includes its economic system. As a result, most Mexicans are trapped in abject poverty. Well over 20 million illegal aliens have crossed the border since NAFTA was passed. Some believe that the solution is to simply eliminate our borders with Mexico and legalize the invasion. Any guest worker or amnesty program will result in even more illegals crossing over. Furthermore, is rewarding those who have entered the country illegally such a good idea? What kind of message does this send? This is also a slap in the face for those trying to come here legally. There should be immigration, and I support and welcome any immigrant who comes here legally and works hard to build a better life for themselves and their family. It is our own policies and social programs that are subsidizing illegal immigration. Increased numbers are putting a tremendous amount of strain on federal social entitlement programs. Pat Buchanan has stated that, “Immigrants consume social services-welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, free schools, prison-cells at rates far greater than our native-born.” The more illegals who enter the U.S, the more wages will go down, the more health-care costs will increase, and the more it will drain our social services and further burden tax payers. Any Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico will spell almost certain doom for a system that already faces future shortfalls. It will only serve to attract even more Mexicans to enter the U.S. illegally. Most entering are unskilled labor, pay little or no taxes, and send much of their earnings out of country. There is no possible way that we can absorb the current levels of illegals without it further effecting our economy and prosperity. The amnesty bill that was defeated several months back was drafted in secret by liberal think tanks and Latino interest groups, such as the National Council of La Raza. They promote a racist ideology and have called for a revolution inside America. Rep Charles Norwood, R-Ga described La Raza as a, “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.” Mexico's government instructs its own citizens on how to safely and illegally cross the border. Many Mexicans are taught to hate America, and mass illegal immigration is part of an invasion, a “reconquista,” which is Spanish for reconquest. Some have laid claim to California, Arizona, Nevada, New-Mexico and parts of Colorado, and Texas. Groups like MECHA advocate, “Everything for the race, for those outside the race nothing.” If you doubt that there is an invasion taking place, here are a couple quotes from two former Mexican Presidents. Ernesto Zedillo said, “I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.” Former President Vicente Fox said, “We are Mexicans that live in our territories, and we are Mexicans that live in other territories. In reality, there are 120 million people that live together and are working together to construct a nation.” They both acknowledged that Mexico as a nation goes beyond its own borders, and Fox illustrates that a Mexican nation is being constructed inside the United States. Many who come here refuse to adapt in any way, and their loyalty and allegiance is not to their new home, but to their native country. In Europe, some countries like France have paid the price for guest-worker programs, with many refusing to assimilate. This has lead to violence and civil unrest on the streets of Paris and other cities. The majority of Americans want something done about illegal immigration, and upwards of 70% were against the last immigration bill. If passed, it would have granted amnesty to more then 20 million illegals, and put millions more on the path to citizenship. This is not a solution, but will only further escalate the problem. Real solutions include ending birthright citizenship, ending welfare-state incentives for illegals, enforcing visa rules, rejecting amnesty, prosecuting employers who hire illegals, making current immigration procedures more fair, and securing our borders and coastlines. What happened to the promised border fence? It appears as if the U.S. Senate has turned its back on the project. The San Diego double-layered fence has greatly reduced the smuggling of drugs and people across the border. In Arizona, many illegal immigrants are leaving because of the poor economy and as a result of tough new legislation on employers who hire them. Along the border with Mexico, parts of Texas have seen a reduction in crossings and crime because of a strict arrest policy, jail time, and fines for those caught. While illegal immigration is being sporadically enforced in some areas, other city and local governments have adopted sanctuary laws and policies. This forbids local law enforcement from asking anyone whether they are here legally, and in some cases it even prohibits the police from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. Some who have tried to monitor the open borders, such as the Minutemen, have been demonized and called vigilantes. Only when we regain control of our borders will we be more secure and better able to preserve our national identity. Not only does illegal immigration threaten our economy, but our security as well. Many illegal aliens commit crimes against U.S. citizens, and close to 10% of our prison population is made up of illegal immigrants. Increased illegal immigration has sparked a rise in violence, with immigrant gangs and crime spreading across our borders. Many Americans along the Mexican border live in fear of illegal immigrants who cross their property every night. Several years back, it was reported that some parts of South Texas and Mexico were more dangerous than the West Bank in Israel. There have been kidnappings, car bombs, machine gun deaths, rocket-propelled grenade attacks, and houses being burned to the ground. There is an undeclared border war with Mexican drug gangs vying for control of drug and human smuggling routes. Many have died as a result of this turf war. Most illegal drugs entering the U.S. are smuggled along our border with Mexico. Drug traffickers are running narcotics into the U.S., sometimes helped by rogue Mexican troops, which has resulted in skirmishes with Border Patrol agents. The fact that our borders are not completely and physically controlled, secured, and defended makes the war on terror seem that much more illegitimate. The Bush administration has failed miserably to stop or fix open borders and illegal immigration. Intentionally unsecured borders with Mexico, and the lack of immigration enforcement helps to advance a North American Union agenda. Perhaps Bush had wished amnesty and a North American Union to be his lasting legacy. What is clear is that defending our borders and preserving our sovereignty has long since been abandoned. Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul stated, “For national security, we need to give more attention to our own borders which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure borders situation – we don't have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.” The failure to adequately enforce immigration laws, properly secure our borders, and any move towards a North American Union represents a betrayal of the American people. January 5, 2008 If Ron Paul Loses, We Still Win By Dana Gabriel It would have been nice to finish ahead of both McCain and Thompson, but Ron Paul supporters can take some comfort in placing ahead of Giuliani, who finished with 4% of the vote. Giuliani did make more visits to Iowa than Paul, but he still wasn't expected to win. Paul beat him more than 2-1, and managed to capture one out of every ten votes. He is posed to build off that and if he can finish with 15% or higher in New Hampshire, this could put him in the top three. If the field remains close, this could also favor him. In a tight race, a split in votes could lead to Ron Paul coming right up the middle. He has more money and resources than some of his opponents, and this puts him at an advantage. The nomination could go down to the wire, with Paul winning or playing a key role. Throughout the campaign, Ron Paul has been ridiculed and attacked for his views, as well as ignored and excluded from polls and debates. Nevertheless, he has shown remarkable resiliency. His huge Internet support, his ability to raise substantial amounts of money, and his 10% of the vote in Iowa have made ignoring him that much harder. He has never been one of the establishment media-preferred candidates, but with his support and polling numbers on the rise, there is no reason for him to be excluded from the Fox News debate. He deserves to be heard. Let the American people make their choice. Trying to suppress his message could have the reverse effect. It is because of his powerful message that he has been catapulted from relative obscurity to legitimate contender and possible spoiler. In the fourth quarter he raised close to $20 million, more than any Democrat or Republican candidate. His support hasn't peaked and he has more room to grow. Nothing seems to be able to derail the Ron Paul revolution, and the longer he stays in the race, the more of a threat he will become. There is no doubt that a lot of money and resources have been poured into New Hampshire. It is important to have another strong showing, and anything less could torpedo Ron Paul's whole campaign. He doesn't have to win, but another impressive showing will further boast his campaign, and carry over into the next primaries. As the field dwindles down, if he can somehow hang around, the differences between himself and his opponents will become more apparent to the American people and will help his cause. To write off Ron Paul might prove to be unwise, and to underestimate him and his support plays to his advantage. Try as they might, the mainstream media can't ignore this revolution. Ron Paul is still in this race and very much alive. It shouldn't be all that surprising that Ron Paul's message of freedom, limited government, lower taxes, following the Constitution, defending American sovereignty, and his non-interventionist policy has been so popular. Some who were disinterested in politics are taking action for the first time. He has restored faith with many who had given up on the whole political process and those sick of the governments lies and corruption. His message of freedom crosses all party lines, and we have him to thank for bringing many key issues to the forefront. This revolution is bigger than Ron Paul- it has given hope and a sense of power back to the people. No longer will our voices be silent, and the actions of his supporters have spawned a movement that will remain in place no matter if he wins or loses. If he does fail in his bid to win the Republican nomination, he will have the support, money, and organizational infrastructure in place to make a serious third party challenge. The Ron Paul revolution of hope and change has come a long way in a short period of time. After the Iowa results Paul said, “This is not the end. This is the beginning.” He is exactly right, but the big question is, can he win? He could pull off a stunning victory, but regardless, supporting him is the right thing to do. This movement goes well beyond Paul. It is about taking our government and country back. He may be America's last hope, and it is up to use to seize this opportunity and make history. His campaign will continue to astonish his supporters, critics, and the so-called experts. Win or lose, Ron Paul and his supporters have changed the rules and the political landscape forever. Ron Paul's message, his dream, his passion and his legacy will live on. December 16, 2007 Disarming of the Population and the Tyranny of Gun Control By Dana Gabriel There are calls for stricter gun control laws after almost every mass shooting. Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent such tragedies; it makes us less safe. Gun control laws do little to prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and they simply ignore any gun-free zones which in turn makes them victim disbarment zones. In many cases it was a gun that prevented a situation from further escalating. We can't rely on the police to save us as they usually show up after a crime has been perpetrated. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Criminals fear an armed citizenry, and it is not surprising that crime tends to rise in an environment where people have lost their ability to properly defend themselves. On the heels of a mass shooting that took place in a mall in Omaha Nebraska, there were two recent shootings in Colorado which took place some 12 hours and 70 miles apart by the same shooter. It began at a Youth Mission office and ended in Colorado Springs at the New Life Church. The gunman opened fire in the parking lot, and was later shot several times and brought down by an armed security guard. Although he later shot himself in the head, this is a good example of guns saving lives. The attacker had a backpack which contained as much as 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and the heroic actions of an armed security guard prevented anymore bloodshed. Also recently, Washington Redskin's football player, Sean Taylor became yet another victim of gun control and disarmament. Although his probation had ended, he was unable to own a gun because he had plea bargained. Someone broke into his house, and he tried to defend himself and his family with a machete. He was shot and later died. A population that is disarmed is defenseless and is more easily enslaved. Only an armed civilian population can properly defend themselves and resist a tyrannical government. When the Nazis seized power in Germany in 1933, they immediately began massive search and seizures of firearms to further neutralize their political opponents. The Gestapo later established a system of central registration of persons obtaining firearms. Hitler's gun control and disarming of the population almost completely guaranteed that firearms were in the possession of Nazi supporters and sympathizers and made any kind of armed resistance inside Germany next to impossible. Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we would possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” The Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals and is about preventing tyranny. Gun control and the disarming of the population threatens a nation's very survival. It should come as no surprise that the United Nations, which is essentially the mechanism for world government, wishes to gut the Second Amendment and institute a global gun ban that would include the private ownership of firearms. The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless. Many who advocate gun control want every gun in the world to be under UN control. This includes rifles, shot guns, and hand guns. Past UN conferences and forums have proposed a ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than a government official and strategies to reduce the number of handguns in private hands. Others initiatives include a worldwide licensing of firearms registered and administrated by the UN and mandating a maximum one gun per person. They also wish to develop and implement an effective disarmament, dembilization, and reintegration program. The United Nations remains a threat to the Second Amendment , our sovereignty, and security and international laws, and treaties further jeopardize our freedoms. Only after the American people have been disarmed can world governance truly be achieved. Gun control and the disarming of law-abiding citizens should never be a solution to reducing crime and serves as a recipe for tyranny. Criminals rarely obtain firearms legally, and gun-free zones act as safe havens for criminals and crazies alike, making us all less safe and potential victims. There is a push for tougher gun control in Europe that would include a centralized firearm registration program as opposed to one controlled by individual European Union nations. History has demonstrated that the biggest advocates of gun control and limiting self-defense are those wishing to further empower the state. The training and tactics of police departments have changed, and in the process their traditional role of serving and protecting has been largely abandoned. We need to become more self sufficient and rely less on government, and this includes our own personnel safety. In many respects we are already in a police state. We have almost lost our freedom to challenge the government, and one of the final stages will be the disarming of the American people. It is a fact that the state is the leading cause of unnatural death. An armed citizenry remains an obstacle and a threat to the New World Order's agenda and its power monopoly. We need to restore and protect the Second Amendment and support gun rights. This is not a privilege, and the right to bear arms not only protects citizens and their property, but acts as a deterrent to government tyranny. November 25, 2007 Fake News and Propaganda: Shaping Our Reality By Dana Gabriel There is a war on the truth, and we are partly to blame as we have lost our respect for genuine news. Dissent is an important ingredient in any free society, yet there is an effort to silence those who criticize the government. Through propaganda, the global elite wish to control our thoughts and perceptions. Just as there is an assault on our personnel freedoms, there is war on the freedom of the press. When journalists are threatened for doing their jobs, the big loser is the free flow of information and ultimately the truth. The Founding Fathers envisioned the press as being independent, reporting the facts and uncovering the truth. Instead, it has become a circus of entertainment and theater mixed in with spin, lies, and disinformation. The Bush administration has been caught paying actors and journalists to appear in and write propaganda pieces. Television stations are using prepackaged news releases produced by corporate and governmental groups without such facts being disclosed. It is clear that we can no longer trust the mainstream media to hold the government accountable. The Bush administration is spending millions, paying off journalists and producing fake news spots to promote their agenda. Some $10 million was spent in a propaganda-like advertising campaign to push President Bush’s Social Security plan. Fake news reports were also put out to promote his Medicare prescription drug program, with production company employees masquerading as reporters. These mock prepackaged reports are distributed to broadcast outlets across the country and inserted into local news casts. They look so authentic that most would mistake it for a real piece of independent journalism, not partisan propaganda politics. They are paying journalists and reporters to further advance the government's agenda. One of the best examples is commentator Armstrong Williams who was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to help promote Bush’s No Child Left Behind. Maggie Gallagher also received tens of thousands of dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services to promote Bush's marriage initiative. The list goes on with the likes of Jeff Gannon, Michael McManus, and Karen Ryan, and these are only a few who were caught. This is not unique to the Bush administration as such practices were also common under President Clinton. A very recent example of fake news occurred during a FEMA-orchestrated news conference which took place during the recent fires that ravaged Southern California. By all accounts, it had the makings of a real news conference, but the only thing missing was real reporters. Some of FEMA's employees posed as reporters, asking softball questions that were carried live by some news stations. It turned into a FEMA love fest, an event to showcase the great job they were doing in regards to the fires. It represented a miscarriage of information, and further legitimized the fact that there is a war on the truth. The only reason there was an apology was because FEMA was caught. It turned out to be a big mistake, an error in judgment, and we were told that this was an isolated incident. It has been reported that both the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff were aware of the fake news conference, and would have more than likely given it the green light. This fake news conference can be best described as government-sponsored propaganda. If the intentions were not to deceive, why wasn't there a disclaimer announced beforehand? We would probably all be amazed by how much propaganda is being passed off as news. It is through propaganda that our minds are being shaped and molded. A mass conditioning is taking place through the media, television shows, commercials, and video games. It is being used as a tool to control, program, and manipulate our minds through the power of suggestion and repetition. Our values are constantly being shaped and re-shaped, and at times our subconscious minds are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction. Ideas and premises are stored in our memory banks, and when they do become reality, we will have already accepted or at least warmed up to such scenarios. Television, radio and print media dictate to us what is important, what is in fashion, what are the latest trends, what to eat, read, and watch. To many, what they see on TV becomes their reality. There is definitely a correlation between the dumbing down of the population, the moral meltdown, and the amount of television being watched. One need not look any further than reality TV, where we are being desensitized to endless degrading acts on shows like Big Brother. These shows are inundated with sexual content, vulgarity, and humiliating, conniving, and backstabbing acts. Today’s television is destroying our very moral fiber and what is left of our values. When we are subjected to the true reality TV like the Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, where is the outrage? We have become a decadent society and are on the decline, being made to accept things like torture. Many television shows, such as 24, openly advocate torture and it seems as if art is imitating reality. America is the new Rome, and we aren’t that far away from so-called terrorist and other enemies of the state being abused and even killed for our viewing pleasure. The propaganda masters are experts in the art of building favorable public opinion with their spin, double speak, and talking points. David Rockefeller is quoted as saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.” Nevertheless, many are now conscious to the fact that the mainstream media is spreading lies and disinformation, and as a result, television news viewership and newspaper circulations are on the decline. Many are turning to the web for their news and entertainment, abandoning television and print altogether. As a result there is a greater effort to further control the Internet and regulate online speech. Nazi Germany and their Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels used many different techniques including ad nauseam, which is the repeating of an idea until it is taken to be the truth. President Bush has said, “see in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to catapult the propaganda.”It is quite obvious that those at the top of the power structure and their puppets wish to shape our reality. November 18, 2007 Internet UNder Attack By Dana Gabriel The Internet has become a vast worldwide infrastructure which more and more people rely on in their everyday lives. It is a free market of ideas and creativity, and has accelerated our capacity to share information. In the process it has challenged the mainstream media's monopoly on news gathering and has lead to unpopular legislation being defeated that might not have been otherwise. That is not to say that you should believe or trust everything you read on the Internet, but there are many creditable and well-researched sites and archived news information. The Internet has become a force in politics, and no where is that more apparent than Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign. It has been used to rally grassroots support and volunteers, and raise substantial amounts of money. There is also a lot of fear-mongering surrounding the net as many are warning that it is struggling to survive under the strain of technical limitations. There has been much speculation that Internet 2, which is used by universities working side by side with government and industry, could replace the current format. The Internet of today poses a threat to any illegitimate government, and the stage is being set to hand over its control to the United Nations. The UN wishes to end U.S. control of the Internet, and at the same time silence many who oppose its agenda of world governance. At the 2006 World Summit on the Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was created as a permanent standing body. The Internet of today is run by a non-governmental organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which has the task of managing the assignment of domain names and IP addresses. They do not decide who can and cannot access the Internet, and there is a genuine fear that shifting ICANN control over to the UN could facilitate censorship of the web. The IGF recently met in Brazil, and is being used by the UN to achieve control of the Internet in an effort to standardize legislation and fund their world government through a series of global taxes. The UN has talked about keeping the world safe from SPAM, cyber crime, terrorists, increasing Internet access to the third-world, and instituting a global e-mail taxation system. A ban on taxing the Internet in the U.S. recently received a seven year extension. Some are warning that UN control could lead to a slower and more expensive Internet. Any challenges and problems that face the Internet cannot be solved by the UN or any another global entity. That is not to say that the Internet is perfect the way it is now, but I would take the status quo over UN control. By controlling the Internet, the UN could severely restrict information, silence free speech, and quell dissent. China's massive censorship of the web is the UN model. The Heritage Foundation said of UN control of the net, “it would give meddlesome governments the opportunity to censor and regulate the medium until its usefulness as a vehicle for freedom of expression and international competition is crippled.” An Internet governed and managed by the UN would represent a serious threat to our freedom, sovereignty, economy, and security. China has been leading the charge to further globalize Internet control, their technological capabilities have further enabled them to track and restrict access and they have exported such tools to other countries. Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are also accomplices in Chinese Internet censorship, and their involvement and complacency illustrates how this could be achieved anywhere. Recently, Yahoo settled a case with two Chinese journalists who were jailed for ten years as a result of information of their on line activities provided to Chinese authorities. Google is hypocritical as they state that Internet censorship is a threat to their business, yet censor their own website in China. Asia director of Human Rights Watch, Brad Adams said, “When companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google decide to put profits from their Chinese operations over the free exchange of information, they are helping to kill that dream.” Many western computer companies are providing filtering equipment to the Communist Chinese government, and are aiding to suppress free speech and political activism, which is leading to the further control and management of information. In China, there are divisions inside the police department whose task is to delete any information they find harmful that could challenge the system and impede social stability. Chinese President HU Jintao said that Internet cultural units need to, “take on the responsibility of encouraging development of a system of core socialist values.” There is no room for dissenting voices, and thus access to many political websites has been blocked or is content-censored. Bloggers are being targeted, and any breaking news that has not been reported by the official government media is also blocked and censored. Thousands of Internet cafes have been closed, and there are even pop-ups that worn users not to access unapproved sites. Amnesty International campaign director Tim Hancock said, “The Chinese model of an Internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers.” There is an agenda by some to further tighten surveillance and restrict access to the Internet around the world. Many other countries besides China are filtering Internet content in areas of politics, religion, and sex. Any effort to curb hate speech could constitute a ban on any speech the government disapproves of or fears. In late September, a bill was introduced in Australia's Parliament that would give the police the power to control which sites can and cannot be accessed. In Malaysia, there are new rules where by bloggers can be held without trial indefinitely. Many bloggers are being prosecuted using terrorism laws. Much of the control aimed at the Internet centers around terrorism, with the aim of preventing terrorists from using it as a tool to further achieve their goals. A definition of the terrorists could include anyone who criticizes the government. With the advent of the alternative and independent media, and bloggers alike, the days of media blackouts are a thing of the past. In many cases, they are breaking more stories than the mainstream media. For many, the Internet is the only true source of uncensored news and opinion. The battle for the Internet rages on with freedom of speech hanging in the balance. In his article, 'What The Chinese Style Internet Will Look Like,' PrisonPlanet.Com reporter Paul Joseph Watson said, “The new Internet will be nothing more than an electronic police state, merely acting as a tool for authorities to track down and incarcerate dissidents who dare question the government.” The United Nations is undermining our sovereignty, independence, and security. They seek to control the environment as well as the oceans of the world through the Law of the Sea Treaty. The U.N. wishes to institute a global ban on guns, and the disarming of the population can only be seen as tyrannical. It is not surprising that they also wish to control the free-flow of information on the Internet as it has been used as a weapon in the info war and has sparked a mass awaking. Many are using the Internet as a resource tool that has lead to countless research and investigations that demand real answers. This is exactly why the global elite want the Internet controlled, much like it is in China. It would mean the end of free speech on the web, and any site that criticizes the government. The days of the Internet as we now know it are numbered. November 11, 2007 Raping American Sovereignty and a North American Union By Dana Gabriel The WTO serves as a middleman, forcing nations to change its laws and brings unwanted meddling in domestic affairs. It severely undermines national sovereignty and allows for the domination of trade policies by multinational corporations. The WTO has given free reign and granted entrenched rights to the world's largest banks and corporations. It has the power to impose sanctions and lacks any real democratic accountability with hearings and disputes conducted by secret tribunals. It also has the power to overturn sovereign nation's laws in areas of tax, labor, environment, and consumer safety. The U.S. was forced to change tax laws relating to Foreign Sales Corporations, and the WTO rules that each year the U.S. must issue at least 65,000 H-1B work visas or be fined for not allowing enough foreign labor to enter the country. With more frequency, multinational corporations are turning to the WTO in an effort to change U.S. laws including zoning laws which could be changed by international courts. Former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich said of the WTO, “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States, at a practical level significant authority to a new organization.” Our own laws should never be changed or overridden by a body of unelected bureaucrats. The WTO has lead to the loss of more sovereignty and democracy which has limited our decision making. NAFTA has lead to the loss of millions of American jobs, it has created trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico and has accelerated the destruction of the middle class. NAFTA severely undermines our sovereignty and control. Under Chapter 11, new rights and privileges were granted to foreign investors operating in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. It has lead to state, provincial and municipal governments being challenged by corporations using their new rights to undermine environmental and judicial decisions. Foreign corporate investors can sue NAFTA countries for cash compensation in secret tribunals if they feel their rights have been violated. Foreign investors have been granted more rights than U.S. corporations and American citizens. CAFTA is equally as devastating, and is essentially an outsourcing agreement that will lead to the loss of more jobs and it will gut all buy American laws which give preference to local companies. Under CAFTA, multinational corporations will have the power to challenge environmental and public interests laws. It could also undermine immigration laws, giving international tribunals the power to rule over Congress. CAFTA seeks to wipe out American laws, and along with NAFTA is being used to breakdown national independence and sovereignty. It was former secretary of state Henry Kissinger who called NAFTA a step towards a New World Order. Many who view NAFTA as a success want to use it as the model for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would encompass the whole hemisphere. The North American Union is being created incrementally, using evolution by stealth, and is being done at the expense of our sovereignty. It is being created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, and SPP working groups who are writing policy initiatives. One of the leading experts on the NAU Jerome Corsi said, “The SPP is creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and mutual agreements which should be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds votes as international treaties.” He went on to say, “They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can harmonize and integrate our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure.” Bureaucrats are able to move about almost completely undetected and with little or no scrutiny. There is a real lack of transparency which makes this whole process undemocratic. The SPP was never debated or passed by the Senate, and the American people deserve to be consulted when they are losing their sovereignty and their Constitution is being trampled upon. Those who claim that the SPP is simply about open dialogue and cooperation are being anything but honest. We're talking about political and economic integration including a single North American currency, which would mean the end of our financial sovereignty, the merging of our laws, environmental, health and safety standards, a new court and tax system, and a new NAU constitution. Under the SPP, the U.S. and Canadian military are further merging their command structures. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said, “Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.” Inside a NAU there is no room for American sovereignty, and how can harmonizing regulations with Mexico and Canada not undermine our independence? Bureaucrats and corporate interests are shaping our future with seemingly no oversight, and as we shed more sovereignty, we will lose the ability to govern ourselves. More and more of America's critical infrastructure, including highways, are being sold, leased, or manged by private foreign companies which constitutes a surrendering of our sovereignty. The Spanish company Cintra is financing and building the Trans-Texas-Corridor (TTC) and will lease and operate it as a toll road. Cintra-Macquaire consortium already has leases for the Indiana and Chicago Skyway toll roads. The TTC is to be the first leg of a NAFTA Superhighway and will be a borderless open transportation system that is the necessary infrastructure needed for a North American Union. Many of the trucks and freight trains filled with Chinese containers unloaded in Mexican ports will have Kansas City as a destination. To handle the increased flow of Chinese cheap goods, Kansas City will have an inland port, and part of the facility will include a Mexican customs office. It is to be staffed by Mexican government custom officials as Mexico wants the right to inspect their own trucks. More disturbing is that it is to be considered sovereign Mexican territory. Imagine a little piece of Mexico in the heartland of the United States. The Financial Services SPP working group has also outlined plans to improve Mexico's infrastructure using Canadian and American tax dollars. This will further facilitate the flow of cheap goods from China and benefit multinational corporations. All across America, already paid for roads and freeways are being converted into toll roads. Charging tolls for roads that have already been paid for is criminal, and furthermore the selling and leasing of key infrastructure to foreign interests threatens our sovereignty and security. We are witnessing the destruction of a sovereign independent America as well as the transfer of power from our elected government to unelected, accountable bureaucrats. In many cases we are already powerless and bound by international treaties, which in some cases take precedence over our own laws. Any move towards a North American Union represents a betrayal of the American people, the Constitution, self-government, freedom, independence, sovereignty, our culture, and our values. Ron Paul said of the North American Union, “The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution.” The attack on our democracy continues, and the raping of American sovereignty has left it a shadow of its former self. We are losing our ability to control our own destiny. November 4, 2007 Ron Paul: Leader of The Pack By Dana Gabriel Ron Paul's recent appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno will give him more name recognition with mainstream Americans, and will translate in more support and contributions. It is because of his huge support base that 3rd quarter numbers more than doubled from the 2nd quarter, with over $5 million raised. He just began running radio spots and television adds in key primary states. In the last Fox debate held in Florida, there appears to have been an effort to assemble an anti-Ron Paul crowd and twice he was booed for his non-interventionist foreign policy. This is a sharp contrast to the majority of Americans who want an end to militarism and who want to bring the troops home from Iraq. Furthermore, bringing the troops home should not be seen as a retreat or surrender as some have suggested. Despite a hostile crowd, he was able to make his points and perform well, and won the Fox post-debate poll. Sean Hannity has accused Ron Paul supporters of skewing the poll numbers by voting more then once. The truth is that most text or online polls are one vote per phone number or IP address, but Hannity isn't about to tell you that. Despite the bias that Fox and others in the mainstream media have shown, Ron Paul is still in the race, and has a shot at winning the nomination. Ron Paul is correct in his assessment that America is less safe, and that the war on terrorism further threatens our civil liberties. Nation building, foreign entanglements, and policing the world has left us weak economically, has stretched our armed forces to the breaking point, and it has created more enemies. Our foreign policy is a failure, dangerous, and costly; it is time to admit the error of our ways and plot a different course. It was a mistake to go into Iraq and it is a mistake to stay. Although Ron Paul did not support the war in 2002, he said, “If you want to go to war you should go to war properly. Declare it, win it, and get it over with.” While other candidates call for staying the course possibly for another decade in Iraq, he would bring the troops home immediately. This further distinguishes him from the other Republican candidates and top Democrats like Hillary Clinton. He matches up well against her, and many have said he is the only one who could defeat her. He said of Hillary, “She voted for the war now she says she can't get the troops out until 2013 and she won't rule out a military first strike against Iran.” A Ron Paul foreign policy would be humble and peaceful, but not at the expense of a strong defense. The Ron Paul revolution is a grassroots movement made up of anti-war, anti-establishment, enthusiastic, spontaneous supporters. He has sparked a fire which has lead to the same passion in regards to the message, and a willingness and a wanting on the part of his supporters to share it with the rest of America. His supporters are dedicated and highly motivated, and are taking action on their own. They aren't waiting for orders from headquarters. They are tearing down the walls, challenging the establishment, the status quo. Ron Paul's message of hope, peace and freedom is resonating. He said, “Our crowds are diverse. Freedom unites. It's not right wing, it's a humanitarian thing.” Everywhere he speaks, people are eager to be a part of the Ron Paul revolution, and are showing up in large numbers. Young, old, black and white, male, female Republican, Democrat-Ron Paul might have limitations, but his message does not. During this campaign, the corporate-controlled media's job has been to neutralize real conservatives, ignore Ron Paul as much as possible, and pretend that he doesn't have genuine support and isn't having an effect. This is becoming harder and harder to do, but there are many polls that still don't include his name as one of the choices and some online polls where he is winning have been pulled or manipulated. When he appears on the neo-con shows under the guise of questioning, they attack and try to misrepresent him in an effort to discredit him. He has been accused of taking marching orders from Al-Qaeda, and was viciously attacked over the amount of federal funding he requested for shrimp research in his district. Much has been made of his association with radio talk show host Alex Jones, who is a leading figure in the 9/11 truth movement. There were accusations that a political campaign contribution refund to Jones was somehow proof that that the two were in cahoots, and that Ron Paul was paying for favorable coverage. He has been a guest on the show for years, and speaking of Alex Jones Ron Paul said, “Of course I don't support everything he says but people that I associate with, I don't endorse their views they come over to associate with me to endorse my views.” The attacks on Ron Paul are becoming more frequent, vicious, and desperate, but this guilt by association and all other tactics aren't working. The best thing the mainstream media could do would be to endorse him and his message, but these corporate shills have already sold their souls. Ron Paul is winning the hearts and minds of the American people, and in the process is setting the stage for the Republican Presidential nomination. He is no longer just an Internet phenomenon, and everywhere he goes, there are large crowds who are inspired by his message. As his profile increases in the mainstream, so are his converts. His message of hope, liberty, peace, and prosperity is an easy sell to Americans, who are disillusioned with the whole political process. He is shattering the left/right paradigm, and attracting support from all ends of the political spectrum. With approval ratings for Congress and the Senate at all-time lows, Ron Paul offers hope. Many criticizes his policies and his vision, but in return present no alternatives or solutions except for the status quo, which obviously isn't working. It is clear that the Democrats aren't going to save us, and their betrayal to the American people in regards to Iraq will not go unpunished. Some of their presidential candidates rhetoric towards Iran parallels the war hawk neo-cons. It is frightening not to have a real choice, but with Ron Paul we do. He is the leader of the pack when it comes to defending and following the constitution. He is the leader of the pack when it comes to humility, morality, consistency, and honesty. He is deviantly the leader of the pack when it comes to the Internet. With a substantial war chest, a popular message, and support growing daily, there is no stopping this revolution. The level of desperation on the part of GOP hacks and cronies, political pundents, and strategists has reached a fever pitch. They know that there is a risk that Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination and become president. October 16, 2007 Setting The Stage For a North American Union Currency By Dana Gabriel Many argue that a regional currency and a North American Union will be needed in order to compete with the European Union and the euro. There seems to be no end to the dollar's woes as it continues to hit record lows against the euro. Large and ever growing trade deficits with China further threaten the dollar, and the euro is competing as the international foreign reserve currency. A single North American currency is nothing new as the idea has been floated around for some time. In 1999 , economist and former Canadian Member of Parliament Herbert G. Grubel published his paper, “The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union.” It is interesting that he gives 2010 as the possible timetable for the introduction of the amero. This happens to coincide with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) task force's report, “Building a North American Community,” which also states the target year of 2010 for the implementation of their recommendations in matters of economics, politics and security. This report is considered by many to be the blueprint for the SPP, which was signed in March of 2005. It is through the SPP process that a North American Union is being created. The proposed amero would be a single North American fiat currency. This would give the global elite control of North America through the power of currency creation and would further facilitate in the consolidation of wealth and power in the region. The CFR supports a switch to regional and global currencies, and an end to national currencies. They have had their tentacles in almost every administration, with the goal of destroying U.S. sovereignty. Benn Steil, the CFR's Director of International Economics said, “countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies.” The CFR wishes to divide the economies of the world into three different regions, each with its own currency. Ending monetary nationalism will result in the loss of economic sovereignty. In an article entitled “The Death of Three Nations,” Alan Burkhart states, “Our currency will be replaced with the Amero. And we'll be one giant step closer to the UN's perverse dream of a one-world government.” A North American Union and the amero are only one small part of the New World Order's agenda to enslave humanity. Many consider Robert Pastor to be, “the father of the North American Union,” as he has been one of the leading advocates for deeper integration. He envisions a North America with its own currency, the amero. He was one of the vice chairs of the “Building a North American Community” report. He often uses word semantics, and by referring to a North American Community instead of Union, it sounds less ominous and threatening, when there is really little difference. According to Pastor, a time is coming soon when a common currency will be needed to compete with the euro. He has said that another 9/11 terrorist attack could create the right climate needed to advance integration into a North American Community. He stated,”What I'm saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that would be required to create a North American Community.” After a terrorist attack or an economic collapse, many more would accept the idea of the amero and a North American Union as both reasonable solutions. In May of this year David Dodge Governor of the Bank of Canada said that a unified currency with the U.S. was a real possibility. Bob Chapman, publisher of the news letter, the International Forecaster, said that the amero, “will be presented to the American public as the administrations solution for dollar recovery.” Steve Previs, a vice president at Jefferies International LTD., a London investment firm, has openly prompted a move over to the amero. Speaking of the amero, he said that it, “is a proposed currency for a North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.” He went on to say that the agenda is a, “borderless community, much like the European Union, with the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso being replaced by the amero.” A couple of weeks ago, BankIntroductions.com was informing their clients that the amero could be introduced as a North American currency sometime in the next ten years. If there wasn't already enough proof that the amero and the North American Union agenda are real and not some made up conspiracy theories, former Mexican President Vicente Fox only reaffirmed these suspicions in interviews on the Larry King Show and on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Fox is a true globalist, and on the Larry King Show he expressed that President Bush has been working towards a single currency similar to the euro. On the Daily Show, he argued in favor of a North American Union, using the EU as its model. This was an incredible admission by a most senior former government official as he publicly advocated for the creation of a North American Union and its own currency. This was not a slip of the tongue as it was meant to present this agenda in a positive manner, test the waters, and further condition the people for its eventual implementation if we are unable to stop it. There is an even bigger gap between rich and poor, and the death of the middle class is almost complete. It is the multinational corporations who benefit from trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA, and a North American Union will be no different. The corporate takeover of North America is a destructive cycle that will only serve to further widen the gap between rich and poor. The unholy alliance between government and multinational corporations has been exposed on many levels. This is no longer our government, as they have ceased to be for the people and have become for the rich, by the rich, and for the rich as big business interests come before our own. The amero is part of the integration of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union. The current global crisis and the dollar's imminent collapse could be the right climate for the introduction of a regional currency. The amero will mean the end of our financial sovereignty, and will further undermine America's ability to control its own economic independence. October 9, 2007 Saving Canada From a North American Union By Dana Gabriel |