Tag Archives: Obama

Trump, Cruz – Patriots or Partners with World Elite?

A recent Breitbart article captured my attention with the headline “Bill Kristol has Strategy to Give White House to Hilary IF Trump Should Win!” Now why would a leading Republican voice want to risk dismantling the GOP by helping the party lose to a criminal democrat who should really be behind  bars?  The true reason behind this declaration needs a closer inspection.

According to the Breibart report William (Bill) Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe discussing Donald Trump’s campaign.  Kristol boasted he had a plan to deprive Trump of the 50% delegates required to secure the Republican nomination and force a brokered convention. He further declared that his scheme included cutting a deal which awards enough delegates to an “acceptable” candidate.  He also told Joe Scarborough that “we” have to stop the momentum and ensure Trump loses in both Florida and Ohio in order to keep the race open for another candidate to gain the nomination.

For the past few years the registered Republican numbers were on decline, however since Trump entered the race for POTUS, the numbers are once again increasing.  In fact the numbers are up a full 7% with larger than expected voter turnout for the primaries.  Logically would it not benefit the party to support such an historic populist front-runner?  It appears that the voting majority disagree with Bill about “the Donald” not being an “acceptable” candidate, so why did he state “we” must stop the momentum (of WE the People)?  The answers become apparent after a deeper investigation.

washgconconvjuniusbrutusstearnsvamu

First, besides operating The Weekly Standard, who is Bill Kristol?  Bill was also the Co-Founder of Project for the New America Century a neoconservative think tank based in Washington DC with the stated goal of “promoting  American global leadership” via wars and aggressive foreign policies.  Quite the contrast of George Washington’s sage advice in his farewell speech in which he firmly stated “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all”, in addition: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”  Washington’s speech should be read in entirety by all Americans to confirm that he believed true liberty meant not being aggressive with other countries, but instead not entangle with foreign alliances and focus on the sovereignty of the Republic. Yet the Project’s other co-founder, Robert Kagan, defined himself as “a liberal interventionist”.  Others who signed or funded the New America Century included former Vice-President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch (FOX News). PNAC released a statement back in June 1997 which included the following statement:

“We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order…”

Although some Americans may believe the statement sounds positive, this was not the vision the Founding Fathers laid forth. For instance in 1799 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter advising

“I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty.”

Clearly PNAC’s goal was the complete opposite of the Founder’s intentions. So where did PNAC’s ideas originate?  Bill Kristol’s very own father, the late Irving Kristol was nicknamed “the Godfather of Neoconservatism”a label he proudly wore.

CHANGING AMERICAN POLITICS

Irving Kristol was born in 1920, Brooklyn, New York to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He was schooled with and supported radical socialism in the 1930s.  He later would become a contributing writer to “Commentary” which was a liberal Jewish Monthly Review magazine.  “Commentary” provided the intellectual roots for neoconservatism.  He also was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The neocon movement was formerly established in the 1960s by a group of socialist democrats which included both Irving and Max Shactman who was a prominent member of the Communist Party USA and considered a leading Marxist theorist.  However this group of socialist-communist democrats rejected the hippie counterculture movement and decided to vacate the democrat party and infiltrate the republican party instead.

By 1979 the neoconservative movement had gained notoriety and became the basis of the book released that year titled The Neo-Conservatives: The Men who are Changing America’s Politics.  Irving was prominently featured in the book.  When he was asked “What is Neo-Conservatism?”, he answered “it is not ideology but persuasion” and that neocons were truthfully “a liberal who has been mugged by reality”.

New World Order

Why did American politics need to change?  Neocons may occasionally refer to the Constitution which is the foundation of our politics but their agenda is clearly not Constitutional.  Since the Founding Documents are supposed to be our politics which formed a limited government model espousing the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, then what did they “change” in our form of government?  Former President George H.W. Bush, a neocon, announced in a state of the union speech, “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and future generations a new world order……….an order in which an incredible United Nations can use its peace keeping role to fulfill its promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” He did not affirm to keep the promise and vision of the Republic’s Founding Fathers, but instead the UN’s.

The United Nation’s is a one world government organization promoting “international cooperation”and was established after World War II to replace The League of Nations.  During his Nobel Peace Prize speech, United States Diplomat Ralph Bunche sounded “It is worthy of emphasis that the United Nations exists not merely to preserve the peace but also to make change – even radical change..”    Years later Americans would be bombarded with the word “change” during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign stating “Yes we can”.

Thomas Jefferson and company established America to be a country in which the people governed and were represented by individuals who defended the people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without government dictatorship.  In fact, Jefferson confirmed by stating:

“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

Scalia’s Death Confirms POTUS Constitutional Eligibilty Crucial

By now everyone in America is aware that Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia died over Valentine’s Weekend. Unfortunately this was not a Valentine gift for any Constitution defending American, especially considering the possibility that this will be the third “judge” appointed by Saul Alinksky fan, Barrack Obama. Furthermore, if the GOP does not stop the appointment during an election year and Obama once again strong-arms his way, then the lifetime appointment will fundamentally transform the court into a “liberal” majority not honoring the Founders’ original intent of the Constitution.

In fact 4 years ago while in Cairo, former President Bill Clinton appointed justice, Ruth Ginsburg, declared to a group of Muslim “revolutionaries” during an interview, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.” Indeed “social justice” was used by the liberal court members when they “legislated” instead of protecting the Constitution during the aggressive “marriage” debate. A fact that Scalia knew and warned Americans in his dissent: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Unfortunately the “revision” of the Constitution is not just isolated with the highest court in the land, but also with the highest office of the country, the President of the United States. Back in 2008 before Obama was elected, I watched a video created by a democrat attorney declaring that Obama was not eligible for POTUS. After listening intently, I decided to start researching the possibility that his ineligibility could be true by reading words from the very first supreme judge of the land, John Jay. Judge Jay wrote the following words to George Washington on July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” In addition, the authors of the founding documents, relied on the works of Swiss Diplomat Emer de Vattel who wrote the following in “The Law of Nations”, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

In conclusion of extensive review, yes the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate for POTUS is of extreme importance to prevent any type of foreign influence, enemy infiltration, or radical transformation of America. This criteria was extremely important to the Framers of America and in fact there are many famous quotes from speeches, letters, and books to validate this position. Perhaps the most relevant is from Washington’s farewell speech in which he warned against the abuse of political party power and their allowing for enemy infiltration: “It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Many modern day liberty defenders have loudly tried to educate other voters on being concerned about this very crucial Constitutional matter which shockingly has gone ignored by the mainstream. One would think that every American would be concerned about sovereignty, security, liberty, life, property and country and the ‘executive’ who can, with their power and influence, destroy every aspect. Instead those of us who attempt to awaken and educate are mocked and even labeled “birthers” as if we are the ones on the wrong side. Even self-proclaimed ‘conservative’ radio host Mark Levin has declared us to be “kooks” and “goofballs” yet admits he has “not” even “studied the issue” which according to him “is not a constitutional issue.” (Say what??) No Levin, it is not “interpretive” for just your non-researched “opinion” as the Constitution is quite clear Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Founders

For those who believe eligibility is a “non-issue”, the Founders held many debates regarding the establishment or not of common law and what it meant to be American. President John Adams perhaps summarizes it best, “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.” Thus since America was established by the text of the Founding Documents, then our loyalty should be to those words and intent versus the words of paid media puppets, power hungry deceptive politicians and special interest lobbyists, corporations and organizations who each display self-interest instead of genuine interest in defending the Constitution. Veritably some of these self-interest individuals and organizations have attempted to abuse the 14th amendment in order to confuse voters, however the amendment did not change the Article 2 requirement for the Oval Office and in reality was just intended for slaves. In fact Minor vs. Happersett confirmed that the 14th Amendment did not grant any right to vote, regardless of sex, age or citizenship, thus no right for political office either. The following is an excerpt from the final decision:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. … “

Ironically Obama declared on Saturday, “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.” How can an unconstitutionally eligible “President” honor the very document he ignored to gain office? In a country filled with individuals educated with the principles of liberty, he would have never been a candidate for the highest office, since the educated voters would have rose up in unity to prevent his unlawful campaign.

Regrettably now the conservative and libertarian communities are voicing both concern and outrage on social media. Republican members of congress are threatening to block any nomination and reminding democrats of their resolution 334 written back in 1960, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Plus the reminder of Senator Chuck Schumer’s words that President Bush should not be able to confirm Roberts during his final year in the White House in order to represent all Americans and not just conservative cliques.

However none of these reminders, threats, and concerns would be present today had the American people been more troubled by the danger of corruption and possible foreign infiltration of the executive branch of America. If one wants to destroy a nation, it is easiest to accomplish from within. Why the American people show little regard for the Constitutional eligibility of any candidate is not only a rather disturbing question, but also an easy opening for enemy aggression. Besides Obama, there are currently two ineligible republican candidates, Cruz and Rubio, for which conservatives show rabid support despite their lack of Constitutional requirements for POTUS. Literally their supporters will verbally attack you and question your patriotism for bringing up any evidence to support the truth.

America the Republic was buried decades ago, in fact some people claim as far back as Lincoln’s presidency. (Personally believe the final death nail was at the inception of the Federal Reserve.) Nonetheless, America could be restored if voters became truly interested with freedom and liberty launching a serious study of the Founding documents and the Framers’ intent by reading their books, speeches and letters. Once educated on true liberty, voters may be more inclined to not merely trust the words of a candidate or base decisions based on personality and/or image.

Sadly Scalia’s death is clouded with terrifying suspicion due to shared details that he was discovered dead with a pillow on his head. Furthermore, the local democrat judge, Cinderella Guevara, announced that there was no foul play although there was no investigation or autopsy to confirm her declaration. In fact his body was embalmed immediately. Plenty of other news articles and blogs are addressing this controversy. But these details and suspicions may have never occurred in the first place if we had an honest government filled with representatives who honored their oaths and carried out the will of the people, rather than the will of banks, corporations, investors, secret cabals, special interests and foreign influences all with malicious intent to advance their nefarious agendas.

Sadly this country lost a Supreme Court Judge who actually understood the Constitution and honored his oath even when his decisions upset special interest groups. Now as a consequence of voters who do not understand or care about the text of the Articles of the Constitution, the United States now faces the complete radical transformation of the Judicial Branch in an attempt to completely shred and rewrite the law of the land with social “justice” personal preferences.

In conclusion, all parts of the Constitution, not just sections, matter which includes the section detailing the eligibility of a presidential candidate. This executive branch criteria should be of utmost importance to voters. Today would be quite different had Obama never unlawfully taken office or had been lawfully removed from office. May Scalia’s untimely death and the new appointment process be a wake up call for all voters regardless of political party affiliation!

 

Capitalism or Communism? The Evil Plans for One World Order

Capitalism is evil….well from a communist’s perspective!  In light of the recent elections in Greece, the Ferguson-inspired riots in America, and increasing minimum wage discussions, communism has dominated news headlines.  Since America’s existence, the country has enjoyed leading the world in economic prosperity.while ranking at the top, or near the top, of the freedom index.  The United States has been the beacon of light for millions of immigrants escaping their homeland oppression.  So the perplexing question is…why do communists despise ‘capitalism’?

Recently a self-proclaimed communist tweeted me a message asking why I liked the Constitution and Capitalism?  I simply tweeted back, “freedom and liberty”.  Not satisfied with my reply, he continued to barrage me with a series of tweets in an attempt to ‘change my view’.  Unfortunately for his time, he only confirmed my resolve to defend a Free Republic.  However I did observe his only argument for collectivism, “workers earn more money and the elite are ‘forced’ to give”.  So is his point regarding communist workers earning more money true?  First, one must understand that communism is both an economic and ideological system for which all citizens are supposed to be considered equal in most areas including wages.  In Communist China the average wage per day (in US dollars) is $15 with an annual minimum wage of $2,472 ;  ; ; Cuba’s average income is $20 per month with an annual minimum wage of $108; limited data for North Korea states the average income is $1 per day;  and the average Russian income seems to average approximately $250 per month with an annual minimum wage of $2,161. In stark contrast, the United State’s average annual income, according to the latest Census, is $51, 371 with an annual minimum wage of $15, 080.  Furthermore, when you examine the freedom index, America is ranked 12th proving the country ranks strong in both dollar and cost of living compared to the majority of countries around the world.

Many collectivist essays online want everyone to believe that communism wipes out poverty, but if this was true, why the real life stories and news from people in communist/socialist/marxist countries crying out for help to end poverty? Why the mass border invasion into America from socialist countries like Mexico and South America?  In fact is it not the communists shouting at Americans wanting secure borders that the “undocumented workers” are only coming here for a better life?  If the socialist-communist economic system was “better” than would it not be Americans illegally crossing into the border of Mexico instead?  What exactly am I missing because their reasoning makes zero sense to me?

Well the communist tweeter also claimed that under communism, the wealthy are “forced” to give.  Personally, I rebel against force!  And frankly is it really “giving” with a generous heart under duress?  Moreover according to the latest World Charity Index, the CAPITALIST-leaning countries the United States and Myanmar tie for first place of most charitable! Intriguing considering Communist China is home to the most billionaires in the world. Therefore, based on the communist philosophy, China should have topped the world’s “charity” list.  Wait!  How can a communist country be host to both the most billionaires and oppression?  How does this fit into the definition of communism?  Google and you will find nervous collectivists attempting to claim China has become a crony-capitalist country.  “They have eyes but cannot see…..”

The brilliant author of “Atlas Shrugged” (on every capitalist’s bookshelf), Ayn Rand, lived under both a communist system and a capitalist system.  She admitted that capitalism was not perfect, but it was less evil than communism.  Besides writing about John Galt, she also declared the following, Government ‘help’ to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off”  From Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan, many have shared Ms. Rand’s exact sentiment.  Confirming this idea, F.A. Hayek warned in his enlightening book, “The Road to Serfdom”, .“It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors–are essentially those on which the of an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.”  

Thus the only two “points” attempted by the annoying communist tweeter are completely debunked by actual facts, examples, and statistics. Despite the debunking, Rasmussen revealed in a poll that 11% of Americans preferred communism.  Since the poll is now 4 years old, my guess is that the number may now be within the 15-20% range. However the poll proves that the February 16th, 2009 Newsweek cover was mere propaganda with their headline “We Are All Socialists Now”. The article certainly read like a “sales pitch” towards a socialist United States.  As a matter of fact the magazine’s editor Jon Meacham wrote, “Whether we want to admit it or not the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.” And in stark contrast to former President Ronald Reagan’s warning that “government was the problem”, the European Newsweek editor Michael Freedman penned, “…….government can actually be a part of the solution.”

How can government be an economic solution while possessing an over $18 trillion debt?  In point of fact the United States projected debt by the end of 2015 is $21.694 trillion!!   Coinciding with the debt of the country, citizens are experiencing historic high personal debt, unemployment and underemployment rates which are all contributing factors in the diminishing of the middle class.  .  Further disconcerting statistics show more than 46 million people in the third most populated country in the world is dependent upon food stamps.  In fact, federal data released less than a month ago reveals one in five children in the nation relying on food benefits to eat.. Nevertheless, last year congress approved a bill, signed into law by Obama, to reduce the food stamp benefits by $8.7 billion over the next decade.  Yet collectivists demand bigger government as a solution for the poor and disadvantaged.  But if this ideology was accurate, then the high-tax, large bureaucratic state of California would not cause the mass exodus into the lower-tax, smaller government state of Texas.  Concurrently the Lone Star State enjoys ranking high on the most recent Mercatus Center-George Mason University Freedom List while the former Golden State ranks near last due to restrictive policies.

Frankly since all statistics prove individuals are freer and wealthier in a free market, limited government system, I agree with an archived article at http://www.mises.org regarding people still attracted to statism being due to issues involving personal accountability.  The author of the article, Luca Ferrini, brilliantly wrote the following synopsis:

“……. some people, by virtue of having been socialized under statist conditions, are not attracted to the responsibility that comes with the idea of freedom.

To believe in private property rights and a free society means to make a great call for responsibility: what society should do should be done by you, or by others in cooperation with you, but not by the collective. The obligation falls on individuals, and everyone is made responsible for his actions. If you make a mistake, you pay. If you succeed, you get the benefit and are free to choose what to do with it.

In contrast, the enlargement of the state always means an attack on responsibility. Under a communist regime, self-responsibility is eliminated. The more a government intrudes into citizens’ lives, the less people feel a sense of responsibility for their actions. Bureaucrats do not typically have full responsibility for their actions. Politicians, central bankers, and judges do not pay for their mistakes. They experience a kind of immunity from bearing blame for the consequences of their actions during the time they are in power.”

Statist leaders tend to impose “cult of personalities” and God-complexes believing that only they can take care of you and unfortunately too many follow due to “self-responsibility” and state-controlled propaganda which starts in their public “education” programs and continues via ‘media’ and arts & entertainment.

The truth is there is ONLY one God!  Fortunately in Communist China, Christianity is growing at an extremely rapid pace with experts citing the country will be the leading Christian nation in the world within the next 15 years. Naturally President Xi Jinping is cracking down with increased police state actions and persecutions against these believers. Collectivist rulers are threatened by Christians due to the “freedom” one feels with enjoying a personal relationship with Christ.  Christians do not need anyone to “take care of their lives” as we believe in personal accountability for our actions.  Since a very centralized government is in control in China, it could take several years before the world sees any political changes, however just like Christianity affected Roman politics during the early days, the Chinese government will most likely one day reflect the faith of the majority.

In contrast as government is growing in America, Christianity is rapidly declining. Perhaps the statistics are appealing to the growing number of non-believers in the United States, however this should alarm every liberty-loving individual irregardless of belief system since historically freedom coincides with a society’s morality.  In fact 19th Century-French classical liberal author and economist, Frederic Bastiat noted in his enlightening book “The Law”:

“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

More concisely Founding Father and America’s second president, John Adams stated in a 1798 speech, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The vibrant, rich history and attraction of the United States over other countries is simply due to the Republican form of government and free market system created nearly 250 years ago.  However statists hate America and the associated values of the once great Free Republic, thus the current resident presiding in the Oval Office campaigned with the promise to “fundamentally transform” the country and an ill-informed people elected for this radical departure from a constitutional foundation.  Bastiat also composed the following in his book, “The law has been perverted under the influence of two very different causes: unintelligent selfishness and false philanthropy.

During his “hope and change” campaign, on June 28, 2006, Barrack Obama clearly stated the following words, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation…..” Accidentally omitting words or not, his declaration accompanies the disturbing political reconstruction of the USA today.  Intelligently Bastiat also composed the following accurate observation, “The law has been perverted under the influence of two very different causes: unintelligent selfishness and false philanthropy.” which plagues America today.

Scripture warns us about an oppressive ‘one world order’, however believers and non-believers alike may not be aware of Albert Pike or his eerie plans for the world inked in his infamous 1871 “Three World War Letters”. His ultimate goal for the world was to fully embrace Lucifer and in order for this to be fully implemented the Illuminati must empower communism while destroying all religions via allowing the dominance of Islam in order to weaken Christianity.  Is it possible that former President George H.W. Bush agreed to these plans which is why he stated in a 1990 speech the words, “Welcome to the new world order”?

Perhaps the Bush patriarch is ‘secretive’ about his intentions, but Rockefeller patriarch, David certainly was candid on page 405 of his “Memoirs”:  Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Besides being “proud”, Mr. Rockefeller is also the founder of the Trilateral Commission, director of the “secret cabal”, Bilderbergs, and former director of the Council on Foreign Relations.  These secret, elite groups include both prominent republican and democrat world leaders who meet to discuss and implement world policies. Whistleblowers have confirmed that the Bilderberg attendees were responsible for the foundation of the European Union.

If these world leaders are following the blueprint Pike set forth, then those who practice Islam or the political and economic systems of communism and/or socialism are simply pawns being used for the complete fulfillment of the one world order prophesied in the Bible including the descriptive Book of Revelations, Chapter 13 which includes the following message,

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

One does not need to be a follower of Christ to see the oppression increasing throughout the world.  Whether being orchestrated by the Illuminati or not, the times are definitely ‘a-changing” towards bigger government and less virtue.

Recently I watched the excellent and moving film “American Sniper” and was moved by a line which stated there are 3 types of people in the world – wolves, sheepdogs, and sheep.  The world leaders meeting behind closed doors for secret meetings are most definitely the wolves, however unfortunately the majority population are sheep following these leaders into their own slaughterhouse.

If capitalism was the ‘evil’ system, Albert Pike would have drafted his plan to include empowering the free market system worldwide.  Perhaps capitalism is not perfect, just like imperfect human beings, however like Ms. Rand declared, it is ‘less evil than communism’.

Despite history and statistics, some will always be blind to the truth, however eventually the TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS!  Let’s pray for all liberty-loving Americans the truth will shine a light sooner than later so all people can be set free!