Selling Away America!

Document Reveals Draconian Detail of Obama’s Secret Globalist Trade Pact 

Kurt Nimmo
June 15, 2012

Democrats who plan to vote for Obama in November should be aware that the president is poised to sell the country down the river to transnational corporations.

A newly leaked document posted on the Public Citizen website spells out the Obama administration’s “trade objectives” under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, including a plan to allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States.

Transnational mega-corporations would be permitted to appeal American laws to a globalist international tribunal. If Congress over-rules the decisions of the tribunal the United States would face punitive trade sanctions.

Obama’s secret trade pact is basically NAFTA on steroids. “The leaked document shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against,” Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, told Slate.

So-called “liberal” Bill Clinton shepherded the passage of NAFTA, a trade bill that ultimately cost America around 700,000 jobs and shipped them to slave labor gulags in Mexico and then China and Asia. This was the “gaint sucking sound” Ross Perot warned about in 1992 before Clinton’s “free trade” agreement went into effect in 1994.

“The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

Negotiations on the agreement were kept secret because the trade pact makes a mockery of Obama’s 2008 campaign promises.

“We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications,” an Obama campaign document reads.

“Bush was better than Obama on this,” said Judith Rios, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, according to the Huffington Post. “It’s pathetic, but it is what it is. The world’s upside-down.”

Obama and Bush represent the same interests – the interests of “too big to fail” banks and transnational mega-corporations – and the overwhelming influences on both administrations are identical: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, and the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, the latter two dedicated to establishing world government.

In order to realize a world government dominated by banksters and multinational corporations, the United States – its laws and especially its Constitution and Bill of Rights – must be circumvented and eventually destroyed. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a big step in this direction.

Democrats who declare they will vote for Obama in November because they decry Romney as a stooge for the establishment should realize there is virtually no difference between the two candidates. Both will deliver the United States into slavery.


Arizona Passes Internet Censorship Bill

America…the land of the free…home of the brave…

It isn’t so free and home of the brave anymore, is it?

Steve Watson
April 2, 2012

The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill  that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet  and other means of electronic communication.

The law, which is being pushed under the guise of  an anti-bullying campaign, would mean that anything communicated or published  online that was deemed to be “offensive” by the state, including editorials,  illustrations, and even satire could be criminally punished.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund breaks down Arizona  House Bill 2549:

“The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a  crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’  ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the  bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the  Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and  other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

First Amendment activist group Media Coalition has  written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer,  urging her not to sign the legislation into law.

The letter notes that the terms used in the bill  are not defined in the statute or by reference, and thereby the law could be  broadly applied to almost any statement.

“H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any  electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane  language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’  ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’” the letter notes. … ‘Lewd’ and ‘profane’ are  not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd’ is generally understood to  mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane’ is generally defined as  disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.”

“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one  conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be  repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or  subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the  legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or  annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.” the letter  continues.

In this respect the law could even technically be  applied to someone posting a status update on Facebook.

“Speech protected by the First Amendment is often  intended to offend, annoy or scare but could be prosecuted under this law.”The  Media Coalition letter continues.

“A Danish newspaper posted pictures of Muhammad  that were intended to be offensive to make a point about religious tolerance. If  a Muslim in Arizona considers the images profane and is offended, the paper  could be prosecuted. Some Arizona residents may consider Rush Limbaugh’s recent  comments about a Georgetown law student lewd. He could be prosecuted if he  intended his comments to be offensive. Similarly, much general content available  in the media uses racy or profane language and is intended to offend, annoy or  even terrify.”

“Bill Maher’s stand up routines and Jon Stewart’s  nightly comedy program, Ann Coulter’s books criticizing liberals and Christopher  Hitchens’ expressions of his disdain for religion, Stephen King’s novels or the  Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common taunting  about sports between rival fans done online is frequently meant to offend or  annoy, and is often done using salty and profane language.”

This type of legislation is far from unprecedented. Last year, former president Bill Clinton proposed a law to censor internet speech. “It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview that aired on CNBC. Clinton suggested the government should set-up an agency that monitors all media speech for supposed factual errors.

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

Cass Sunstein, head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also proposed banning speech on the internet that  the government disagrees with. Sunstein proposed the creation of an internet “Fairness Doctrine” similar to the one that was used for years to limit and eliminate free speech on the radio.

This legislation represents yet another move to  police and control freedom of expression via the internet. Once again it grants  the state and the government the direct right to determine what is and is not  “offensive” on a whim. It then allows for the prosecution of individuals and  organisations based on such summations – an extremely dangerous precedent to  set.

Condi Rice says that “there were many mistakes in Iraq” – Gee, isn’t that nice?

New American Century
Image by PRJCT13 via Flickr

You know, it is always so nice that officials of previous administrations can come out and admit that “there were mistakes”.  Of course they can.  Now, in hindsight, the American people cannot touch them.

Just to be clear; Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the same country just before invasion had no navy, no airforce, and a poorly assembled army.  There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11 or after.  They found fighter jets buried in the sand for crying out loud.  And it’s not like the Iraqi military put up that much of a fight.  What was it; a coalition convoy all the way to Baghdad?

As you can find here on my blog and other places; the government during the 90s wanted to fly a U-2 spy plane over Iraq in hopes that Saddam would shoot it down.  The Project for the New American Century wrote many letters to then-President Clinton urging him to invade Iraq.

“I do believe I would take Saddam Hussein out of power again, but of course in the rebuilding of Iraq … I would do things differently,” Rice said. “I think we put too much emphasis on Baghdad and not enough emphasis on the provinces. Perhaps we didn’t fully understand the degree to which the society would start to come apart as a result of being held in tyranny for all those years.”

“Didn’t fully understand the degree to which the society would start to come apart?”  What part of common sense did the Bush administration miss?  Wasn’t it Dick Cheney in 1994 who said that if we toppled Saddam Hussein; Iraq would become a “quagmire“?  But, of course, Dick Cheney was a member of PNAC (Project for the New American Century).  Along with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Bill Kristol.

Sometimes things that look terrific at the time look pretty bad in retrospect, and vice versa, so ultimately this is a story that will be written in history.”

From where I am sitting; the legitimacy and legality of the Iraq invasion and later “success” looks pretty bleak to me.

Could a “false-flag” attack on America save Obama Presidency?

The bombed remains of automobiles with the bom...
Image via Wikipedia

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Wednesday, September 22, 2010

President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.

During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.

Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.

Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.

Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”

Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.

Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.

During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?

Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.

Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.

Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.

Jerry Springer doesn’t back down from Sean Hannity

It’s always great to see a guest on Fixed News that doesn’t back down to the likes of Sean Hannity.  The debate was over Obama’s track record, healthcare, and spending. 

Somewhere in the interview Hannity says, “if you blame Bush I’m gonna come through this camera and strangle you.”  “Metaphorically.”  We won’t even go into the long and sordid history of Hannity’s rantings against Bill Clinton, but let’s just say Hannity is not “fair and balanced”.

Though I disagree with Obamacare, I must say the Springer held his own, and that is commendable.

Later in the interview Hannity went on another rant accusing Springer of “blaming Bush.”  Jerry fired back saying, “I never mentioned his name.”  And Bush inherited a recession, but did he?

As one economist points out, the economy did not begin to show signs of slowing down until September 2000.  Furthermore, the recession that “Bush inherited” didn’t come into full swing until March of 2001.  Conclusion: Bush did not inherit a recession, it happened on his watch.

Hannity named off a whole slew of things that are wrong with this country: housing bubble, debt, foreclosures, etc., and that Obama has had two years to fix it.  But praise Jerry Springer when he rubbed Hannity own propaganda crap in his face when he said that “not all things can be fixed in two years.”  Even Ron Paul has said that the economy cannot be corrected in that amount of time.  It’s impossible.

All history is relevant and is subsequent to historical ridecule.  One can only guess why Sean Hannity – even when the issue is not brought up – has to bring the name George Bush into the foray, but lets leave that to speculation.

Sean Hannity with his smug look of arrogance makes me want to come through this computer screen and bitch slap him.  Metaphorically.

Another one bites the dust — Goodbye, Mark Souder

The party of family and American values isn’t so much the party of family and American values.  Republican politicians in Congress have just as much affairs with other women as what the Democrats do, and some aren’t even publicized.  The Republicans under Bush helped shred the Constitution, and helped support and pave the way for two endless wars.

Joseph Lieberman who was kicked out of the Democratic party for siding with Bush too much has introduced two pieces of legislation that would pretty much end every Americans right to freedom.  Scott Brown who supports legislation to strip those of their citizenship as deemed an Enemy of the State is less than “family values”.  In so much that he posed nude for a magazine spread.  Not very Christian.

Now we have Mark Souder – good ridence.  Now I understand that no one is perfect but these people were put into office to serve the American people, not have various affairs.  Souder has said that he came out and resigned because he doesn’t want this to be a political football for the Dems, but shouldn’t it?  Afterall, it was the Republicans that wanted Clinton out of office for having affairs, obstruction of justice, and lying under oath.

This is politics as usual.  Another attempt to do the finger pointing and laying the blame.  No wonder the American people are tired of the system.

Dick Morris: Clinton blackmailed to reappoint Janet Reno to cabinet over Waco

The following clip is of Dick Morris claiming the President Clinton was blackmailed into reappointing Janet Reno to a second term.  As anyone knows Morris has been a anti-Clinton crusader for a long time and steps in against them at every turn.

As you will see Reno was going to spill the beans on Clinton over Waco and thusly blackmailed him.  Hannity asks why haven’t you said before?  That’s a damn good question.  Could there be truth to this?  There’s alot of heresay.  Or could Morris be spinning a yarn because he hates the Clinton’s?  Either way it makes for good news.