We Know Where You Live!: David Rockefeller Confronted About His New World Order Cheerleading (1669 hits)
Category: NewsRating: -0.07 on 54 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2007-05-30 18:19:58 EDT
For those of you not inthe know, David Rockefeller comes from one of the most priminent families in the United States and the world, and has long been a cheerleader for a "New World Order" (his words, not mine) style government wherein world power is centralized and U.S. sovereignty is no more.
For those of us who have had even the most rudimentary education in the Constitution and world history will immediately recognize why this is so important to expose. It runs contrary to every principle this country was founded upon and represents the nightmarish prospect of having one man or one central cabal in a position of weild lawful and military powers over the entire earth.
Recently, a brave group of souls from an organization called "We Are Change", knowledgable in Mr. Rockefeller's admitted plans for a New World Order, confronted him at his home in New York City. The following video is a record of that brief confrontation: http://www.wearechange.org/2007/05/change-confronts-david-rockefeller.html
The group has also confronted other New World Order operatives such as Rudy Giuliani and Zbigniew Brzezinski and have also recently infiltrated a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) meeting, which is one of several large-scale admitted New World Order operations supported by David Rockefeller and his globalist friends.
Here are a series of quotes from David Rockefeller himself admitting to the existence of a New World Order and championing its furtherance.
"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."
--David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
"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 promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
---David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
---David Rockefeller
"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."
---David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994
"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."
---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973
(http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=18188)
For more David Rockefeller-related/New World Oder reading, I recommend first re-reading the U.S. Constitution, then conducting further research. Without first understanding the basis and reasoning for Constitutional sovereignty, any reading you conduct will not be in context.
It is true that these "New World Order conspiracy theories" are nothing new and have been around for a long time. Even Pat Robertson, the "right-wing" Christian televangelist once wrote a book on the subject, although he seems to be apologetic and empathetic to George HW Bush and his role in the conspiracy.
If nothing else, these admissions by Bush, Rockefeller, Brzezinski, and a host of other high-ranking globalists of the existence of a New World Order movement are most telling and serve to at least get us past the debate of its existence. Doing so should allow the debate to move forward into whether or not it should be abandoned or destroyed.
User Reviews
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-06-01 08:51:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i went to ron paul campaign's website...and in the donation section i saw canadian provinces in the states list.
i was curious and i like the guy so i donated and it worked.
so well-organized NON-american groups could promote a candidate of their choice with significant $$$...wtf?
that's unlikely but still...weird
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-31 17:08:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-31 16:29:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i love how the video shows a wigger harassing a bunch of old men who just didn't give a shit.
you'd think that a man plotting to take over the world would be more protected.
if rockerfeller is such a threat, why isn't he murdering him? he had him, right there...strolling on the sidewalk with his wife. boy...these guys were brave.
-----------------
That's a good point, nd one I'm sure will be considered.
Here is more Ron Paul news, because I can't be bothered to respond to all of this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003726451_rams30.html
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-31 16:32:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i love how infowars says they were "threatened"
the guy is just asking them to leave nicely and hears their bullshit
what a display of courage and bravery. this isn't a revolution, this attention whoring.
"JSUT WATCH THIS, INTERNET! I JUST HARASSED AN OLD MAN AND I WAS TOLD TO GO ELSEWHERE...HOLY SHIT, IT'S LIKE I TOOK OVER BASTILLE ALL OVER AGAIN"
kill urself
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-31 16:29:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i love how the video shows a wigger harassing a bunch of old men who just didn't give a shit.
you'd think that a man plotting to take over the world would be more protected.
if rockerfeller is such a threat, why isn't he murdering him? he had him, right there...strolling on the sidewalk with his wife. boy...these guys were brave.
you know real well that these quotes are taken out of context or misinterpretented. especially the one where he says "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"
the way you spin this is even worse than the idiots on FoxNews who say that Ron Paul inferred the US caused 9/11. read your own language.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-31 16:11:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i almost forgot to check infowars.com
as usual...your post coincide...why don't u just link it?
http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_activists_go_face_to_face_with_evil.htm
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-31 12:53:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:20:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You have GOT to be fucking kidding here...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-31 12:00:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-05-31 11:45:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Exactly how are we going to abandon and/or destroy a global conspiracy?
---------------
By bothering old men on the street who are trying to walk their wives to the car, and then posting video of the even on youtube so people like ETS can praise you for your courageous actions.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-05-31 11:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:14:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The leader of the New World Order will be the Antichrist who ushers in the Apocalypse. It says so in Revelation.
__________________
Oh hush. Christian Propaganda Nonsense.
And on the off chance this turns out true... WHOOOO!!!
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-05-31 11:45:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Exactly how are we going to abandon and/or destroy a global conspiracy?
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-05-31 08:37:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-31 08:02:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:06:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Same reason I mentioned below, a "planet wide senate", to be properly representative of their respective reions, would consist of THOUSANDS of people!
Let's say, for shits and giggles, a new bill comes before the "global senate" that seeks to require that all anglo-saxons pay a penalty for living because of the wars wrought by their forefathers, kinda like a worldwide "repairations" bill... Everyone in the world would probably be for it except the UN countries and the US states. You think that's fair?
How abouta bill that says we all have to split our profits evenly among the nations... Africa would love it. Asia would love it. But would we benefit in any way from such an arrangement considering those people subsist on much less money than we do because of inflation and other factors?
It's just not feasible! The U.S. is supposed to have STATE SOVEREIGNTY for that very reason! Because the founders were wise enough to know that not even every state of THIS Union would ever be able to agree on everything, so instead of making the Federal Government all powerful, they wisely gave the states the ability to decide for themselves what to do within the confines of the Constitution. Instead of some asshole from San Francisco or Alaska or Hawaii having just as much say in how my local government here in Indiana is run as I do, who LIVE here, it makes far more sense to keep the power as local as possible.
This is the argument against big government in the first place...GLOBAL government is a whole other nightmare.
-----------------------------------------
What keeps the US from having a law that requires all non-whites to be taxed twice as much?
A govt is just as bad, or good as the people running it. I wouldn't trust the world today with one govt, but that isn't to say it would always be bad.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2007-05-31 07:56:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
make a post as to why having a one world government is a bad thing. i don't get why it is.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-31 07:38:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-31 01:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh dear God ETS you seem to be getting your shit together... Amazing.
Coyote, saying that economic inequality should be "checked" implies two awful propositions. First, that people are fufilled not by having more, but by having others get less, i.e. the idea that getting $1000/year in a country where everyone else is as well, is preferable to getting $20 000/year in a nation whether others are millionaires at no cost to yourself, which is the senselessness, impractibility, and dog-eat-dog attitude of economic egalitarianism in action. Second, that the ultimate priviledged minority which is the government in any nation, has the right to extort money from some in the interests of others at whim, if it decides the gap between rich and poor is too big.
Economic egalitarianism, or any kind of egalitarianism other than strict legal/political equality, is the irrational ignorance of the fact that we are not equal, and that the only way to make us equal is to restrain a society's most able, which will starve everyone.
--------------------------------------------
As to your first point unless you are "checking" economic inequality to the point that everyone makes the same that scenario is imaginary. This isn't a black and white issue.
Secondly the govt has that right when the people give it to the govt. Weather that is right or wrong is a personal matter and should be expressed in your votes.
Legal and political equality can't and doesn't exist in a vaccuum from economic equality. If I am a rich landowner I am going to have more rights than someoen who is renting off my property. I am going to have more rights than someone who has much less land than me.
There is a difference between taxing the rich more and taxing the most able to the popint where everyone starves.
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-05-31 04:09:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:57:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
protesting republicans in texas is illegal. or at least fatal.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-31 01:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh dear God ETS you seem to be getting your shit together... Amazing.
Coyote, saying that economic inequality should be "checked" implies two awful propositions. First, that people are fufilled not by having more, but by having others get less, i.e. the idea that getting $1000/year in a country where everyone else is as well, is preferable to getting $20 000/year in a nation whether others are millionaires at no cost to yourself, which is the senselessness, impractibility, and dog-eat-dog attitude of economic egalitarianism in action. Second, that the ultimate priviledged minority which is the government in any nation, has the right to extort money from some in the interests of others at whim, if it decides the gap between rich and poor is too big.
Economic egalitarianism, or any kind of egalitarianism other than strict legal/political equality, is the irrational ignorance of the fact that we are not equal, and that the only way to make us equal is to restrain a society's most able, which will starve everyone.
And I do not trust you to summarize the script of the founding fathers (don't take it too personally.)
Submitted by Bohme (user info) at 2007-05-31 01:39:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So, what do you recommend?
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-05-31 00:39:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Daivid Rockefeller blah blah, is one of the richest and blah blah blah and blah blah blah his family is surely blah blah blah. That being said, I think it follows without question that blah blah blah blah blah-be-blah blah blah blah blah. So I'm sure you understand why we have to blah blah blah ble-blah blah blah blah.
Thank You.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:30:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
needs more machine gunned miners
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:23:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
10-4
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:19:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now you're catching on, Jeanneee.
Just remember when you and your kids go to get your 'voluntary' RFID implants that people along the way told you so.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:14:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The leader of the New World Order will be the Antichrist who ushers in the Apocalypse. It says so in Revelation.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:13:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:54:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You think eliminating the estate tax, reducing or eliminating capital gains taxes, and flattening or eliminating the progressive income tax is going to help the poor and middle class?
-----------------
Well, Ron Paul is talking about eliminating the IRS PERIOD, which, in my estimation will help everyone.
As for welfare, he has also suggested we put a decisive end to corporate welfare of all kinds, thus eliminating the flow of taxpayer money from the hands of the poor into the hands of the already rich and powerful.
Furthermore, his return to the gold standard dollar would effectively END the hidden inflationary tax on the American people by stabilizing our currency, and the scale back of defense spendingthat would come from taking a noninterventionalist stance on foreign policy would mean that all that money that was going to private contracting firms for worldwide security, or being spent by our soldiers in god knows what country would be reinvested in our own economy in the form of more businesses, meaning more and better jobs than just the McDonalds down the street.
The notion of graduated income tax somehow being in favor of the poor is a red herrring. It hurts everyone BUT the filthy rich to pay Federal Income Taxes because they are the only ones who can actually afford to lose 10% or 20% of their income in taxes, and besides, they end up getting it all back anyway when they apply for corporate welfare.
As for the estate tax, as far as I know, Bush has already eliminated or severely cut back on that, and again, what's better, taking that money from the wealthy so that it can be spent on DEFENSE (because it's not being spent on social services, that's clear), or letting the wealthy reinvest in the economy freely?
I'm not saying there doesn't still need to be anti-trust laws in place to prevent these mega corporations from enslaving people with their wealth and power, but we need to seriously reassess te true affects and reasons behind this philosophy of a welfare state.
How does that proverb go... Give a man fish and he will eat for a day, but give him a fishing pole and teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime!
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 23:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:18:18 EDT (#)
There is a large difference between economic inequality (some having more than others because they were given or created more) and political inequality (individuals having different status in the eyes of the government;) in fact, the first is a necessary part of a free society, while the second is incompatible with it. Ron Paul supports a political system that tolerates the first, not the second.
-=-=-=-=-=-
That's a distinction without a difference, and incredibly naive. Going all the way back to Jefferson and Adams, it was realized that concentration of vast amounts of wealth in the hands of a few people would have a detrimental effect on democracy by the de facto creation of an American aristocracy (kind of ironic in Jefferson's case, given that he inherited a huge amount of wealth).
Plus, I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of eliminating all economic inequality, but no society can survive if inequality grows unchecked (see Tsarist Russia, Imperial China, Bourbon France, etc). You want to argue that individual/dynastic wealth should grow unchecked? Okay, that's a position. But you have to be prepared to accept that those individuals/dynasties are going to spend their wealth/time the way they want to, flying places to meet other people with similar opinions, contributing to the causes they passionately support. (Ron Paul himself apparently realizes this, as he voted against campaign finance reform).
Whichever end of the political spectrum you reside on, the contradiction is obvious.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:59:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
d_prime: Thank you for that elaboration. You pretty much nailed it. Coyote knows that I respect his intelligence, I've said so many times before. I also respect his ability to handle criticism, thus my no-holds-barred reply. I would expect nothing less from him also. This is the essence of a lively debate...speaking one's mind without regard for political correctness, but with a mind for discovering truth wherever it may be found.
Captainamerica: I talk about this shit to people almost everywhere I go. I post on other websites concerning things that bother me, but mostly I spend a lot of time writing letters to editors of newspapers asking them how they can, in good conscience, print half the drivel they print. I write the producers of TV programs a lot demanding they stop covering American Idol more than they cover the actual news, and I write letters to conressmen and senators when the notion hits me to thank them for their votes or chastise them verbally for being such twats, whichever applies. I am NOT an armchair patriot. I live in Evansville, Indiana, which is not exactly the political capital of the country, but when opportunities afford themselves, I do get involved actively and I ALWAYS speak my mind, mostly to my wife's great chagrin. ;)
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:54:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:53:57 EDT (#)
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:06:17 EDT (#)
How can you simultaneously rail against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a very few families, and support the presidential candidate who wants to do the most to allow such families to hang on to and increase their power over multiple generations?
---------------
How the hell are you spinning THAT one, Coyote?
In what way is Ron Paul helping them "hold on" to their power? I'd really like to hear your answer to that one. You think abolishing the Federal Reserve, the CIA, or the IRS is doing more to HELP these people!?
Are you completely out of your damned mind, or are you just spending too much time staring into space these days and not enough looking at what's going on around you?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You think eliminating the estate tax, reducing or eliminating capital gains taxes, and flattening or eliminating the progressive income tax is going to help the poor and middle class? Or is it going to help the rich get richer? Passing these measures-- which would be FAR more probable than, say, abolishing the CIA or Federal Reserve, because they'd enjoy support from the traditional Republican base-- essentially brings us back to the tax situation of the late 19th century... which, not coincidentally, is when all the robber baron Rockefellers and Carnegies amassed their family fortunes.
In other words, if the original Rockefeller had been taxed at 60% and then his heirs taxed again, we wouldn't have to worry about his third or fourth generation descendants and their involvement in shadowy power-brokerage schemes.
I give him full marks for integrity and plain-speaking: a politician who says what he means is a breath of fresh air. But at some point you have to look at the implications of what he means.
I suppose I'm completely out of my mind though. Obviously letting the fabulously wealthy hang on to all of their net worth across multiple generations has nothing at all to do with their grip on power. Ho hum, guess I'll go back to staring into space.
Submitted by captainamerica13 (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:45:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Normally, I don't comment on political posts, but I have been reading yours for some time and I just figured I'd put my 2 cents in.
You seem pretty passionate about what you belive in and I find that to be an admirable thing.
Sometimes I don't agree 100% on everything you post about, but I think the enthusiasim and zeal you show towards the things that bother you are one of the great things about this country....
However, My questions to you are, why do it on here though? Do you do this on other sites, are you a activist who does this all the time, or..... just on here? I'm just wondering, is all. I'm from Indiana too, by the way.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:18:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:53:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:06:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How can you simultaneously rail against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a very few families, and support the presidential candidate who wants to do the most to allow such families to hang on to and increase their power over multiple generations?
---------------
How the hell are you spinning THAT one, Coyote?
In what way is Ron Paul helping them "hold on" to their power? I'd really like to hear your answer to that one. You think abolishing the Federal Reserve, the CIA, or the IRS is doing more to HELP these people!?
Are you completely out of your damned mind, or are you just spending too much time staring into space these days and not enough looking at what's going on around you?
---------------
Don't take this as an implicit acceptance of any of ETS's theories, political or not, but allow me to reply to your criticism of his alleged contradiction. And in a more polite way, if you're interested (no offense ETS.)
You are saying that ETS, who supports Ron Paul, who believes in economic non-interventionism and free markets, is therefore contradicting himself by clamoring against men who want to concentrate wealth in "the hands of the few."
The reason free market views are compatible with criticism of oligarchy, is that the first only allows financial equality as the the result of voluntary productive agreements between private citizens, in which some may be more productive than others in a free society, while the second concept (and what ETS seems to be applying to his opponents,) oligarchy, represents political inequality, which (whether or not it has financial reprucussions) is inequality of political status and inequality forced at the point of a gun.
There is a large difference between economic inequality (some having more than others because they were given or created more) and political inequality (individuals having different status in the eyes of the government;) in fact, the first is a necessary part of a free society, while the second is incompatible with it. Ron Paul supports a political system that tolerates the first, not the second.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 22:06:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DasHeer (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:24:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what's wrong with having a planet wide senate?
---------------
Same reason I mentioned below, a "planet wide senate", to be properly representative of their respective reions, would consist of THOUSANDS of people!
Let's say, for shits and giggles, a new bill comes before the "global senate" that seeks to require that all anglo-saxons pay a penalty for living because of the wars wrought by their forefathers, kinda like a worldwide "repairations" bill... Everyone in the world would probably be for it except the UN countries and the US states. You think that's fair?
How abouta bill that says we all have to split our profits evenly among the nations... Africa would love it. Asia would love it. But would we benefit in any way from such an arrangement considering those people subsist on much less money than we do because of inflation and other factors?
It's just not feasible! The U.S. is supposed to have STATE SOVEREIGNTY for that very reason! Because the founders were wise enough to know that not even every state of THIS Union would ever be able to agree on everything, so instead of making the Federal Government all powerful, they wisely gave the states the ability to decide for themselves what to do within the confines of the Constitution. Instead of some asshole from San Francisco or Alaska or Hawaii having just as much say in how my local government here in Indiana is run as I do, who LIVE here, it makes far more sense to keep the power as local as possible.
This is the argument against big government in the first place...GLOBAL government is a whole other nightmare.
We fought a revolution and wrote a Declaration of Independence because our forefathers didn't feel it was right for a continent to be ruled by an island, or for our people to be taxed without proper representation. If you think a global government can ever address these issues, you're crazy.
I am with Thomas Jefferson and Henry Thoreau on this one...that government is best which governs LEAST. Setting up a global government, you might as well pave the sidewalks around the capital with gold, because whatever dictator eventually presides over it will do it anyway.
For some of you to even consider this a good idea is evidence that the Department of Education is doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That's fucking scary to me. It shouldn't be since I already knew this, but Jesus H. Christ people! Get you heads out. Please.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:53:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:06:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How can you simultaneously rail against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a very few families, and support the presidential candidate who wants to do the most to allow such families to hang on to and increase their power over multiple generations?
---------------
How the hell are you spinning THAT one, Coyote?
In what way is Ron Paul helping them "hold on" to their power? I'd really like to hear your answer to that one. You think abolishing the Federal Reserve, the CIA, or the IRS is doing more to HELP these people!?
Are you completely out of your damned mind, or are you just spending too much time staring into space these days and not enough looking at what's going on around you?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:32:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This New World Order actually sounds quite feudal.
Submitted by DasHeer (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:24:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what's wrong with having a planet wide senate?
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:11:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-05-30 21:06:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How can you simultaneously rail against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a very few families, and support the presidential candidate who wants to do the most to allow such families to hang on to and increase their power over multiple generations?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:49:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:43:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But, hey...while you're in your little presidential-ordered detention camps, take heart in the fact that you will not be experimented on with a biological or chemical weapon UNLESS it's determined to be for a "peaceful" or "law enforcement" purpose, and, hey, they gotta get your signature of consent first. And since we don't allow torture of detained persons on U.S. or foreign soil, you can also take heart that they won't force you to sign anything.
Do you people even have a CLUE yet how bad it is?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html
U.S Code TITLE 50
Chapter 32
§ 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
(a) Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior notice to Congress
Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
(e) "Biological agent" defined
In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:34:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Boy, I've never heard that one before. That joke never gets old. But the fact that you associate New World Order first and foremost with fake wrestling says an awful lot.
You guys want a New World Order, keep begging. Like I said, you will end up getting your wish if you're not careful.
http://digg.com/politics/Bush_hires_Halliburton_KBR_to_build_detention_camps_in_USA
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55925
I'm not trying to scare you, I'm trying to light a fire under your asses so you'll wake the fuck up and stop living in a fucking dream world. Stop taking whatever fucking drugs you're taking and open your damn eyes.
Submitted by Lambchop (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:23:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
New World Order? I supported the New World Order. Hulk Hogan and his bunch could taken the pansy girlscouts of Eric Bischoff and "Nacho Man" Randy Savage. They ruled the WCW and the WWF. What you gonna do, brother.
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:17:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:12:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll give ya a plus two, but you know my feelings...
An Illumanti run New World Order would be the only TRUE and VALID way for humanity to evolve.
Such primitive concepts as "nationalism" and "patriotism" NEED to be ebolished to achieve gobal unity.
I believe in this. I BELIEVE we need a world authority to see past such feeble things as race, religion and sex.
I fully support the NWO concept, but I doubt we'll ever see it come to pass...
+
http://one.revver.com/watch/10904
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:17:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Nevermind the half assed conspiracy theories.
Nevermind the out of context quotes that make absolutely no attempt to give a proper frame of reference for what the person was trying to say.
By far the stupidest thing about this post is calling a bunch of kids who hassle an old man on a public street "brave", a bunch of kds who rally others to hassle an old man "brave".
Is this the kind of bravery we can expect from you when it comes to fighting oppression? I look forward to the day when you make a daring attack against the NWO by kicking an old man in the hips.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 20:09:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:12:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll give ya a plus two, but you know my feelings...
An Illumanti run New World Order would be the only TRUE and VALID way for humanity to evolve.
Such primitive concepts as "nationalism" and "patriotism" NEED to be ebolished to achieve gobal unity.
I believe in this. I BELIEVE we need a world authority to see past such feeble things as race, religion and sex.
I fully support the NWO concept, but I doubt we'll ever see it come to pass...
--------------
You honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is nothing wrong with nationalism and patriotism when they aren't being used to drum up support for an unjust war. The key is to follow the Constitution. In a perfect world, globalism might be ok, but any global government wouldn't be about protecting all people and treating all races equally nor would it be this idealistic sexual liberation youthink it would be about. A global government would be run by the same central bankers that basically conrol everything already, only they'd have a much easier time getting past the laws of localities and states in thier effort to consolidate power and rob and pillage for their own benefit.
As a generation born after both world wars and the Great Depression were a distant memory, I think come of us are sadly uneducated about the dangers of consolidated power.
I suspect that one day you will get your wish, Kaos, and it will not be pretty. You have to see past the idealism to the reality of the situation we're in on this planet. You cannot count on the benevolence of powerful men with unckecked authority. And if there's a "world government", what checks would there be? The media? Please. The people running the show bought the media up long ago,that's why you've got media moguls meeting alongside politicians and industrialists at Bilderberg meetings plotting our world agenda with ZERO oversight or even mention of it in their various publications.
What you are most ignorantly advocating is the analogous equivalent of what would happen if we abolished the legislative and judicial branches of America government. The president would weild unquestioned power, plain and simple. We would live in a dictatorship. The same is true with a lobal government, we would live in a dictatorship, but the situation would be even worse because then we'd find ourseves under the authority of some international body in Europe with absolutely no concern for our local traditions, customs, faiths, or communities. The law would be the same whether you were an aboriginal in the Amazon rain forest, an innuit in the far north, or a nobody from Anywhere, USA.
Then, on top of the taxes already being leveed from us would be multiplied once again when they start taxing us for breathing the air, or eating meat, or having more than one child.
You want a communist dictatorship, move to China, dude, because that's exactly what you'd get in a one world government. You think it was because of our national sovereignty that we went into Iraq? You think it's because of patriotism we're talking about bombing Iran with a preemptive nuclear weapon? If so, you need to seriously wise up! We're involved in the crap we've been involved with since 1913 PRECISELY BECAUSE of this push for global goverment!
1913 - The Federal Reserve Act is voted into law with only 3 people present in secret. Everyone else had gone home for Christmas.
Woodrow Wilson, the president at the time, also pushed for the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. He later regretted all this saying that he had unwittingly turned over power to a cabal of wealthy elite who cared nothing for the people of the United States or any other country for that matter.
Also, if you believe it's simply coincidence that within months of the Federal Reserve Act we were embroiled in World War I, you're a fool. The Great Depression was engineered by the same people, which led us to World War II and a whole raft of new legislation that essentially stripped the rights of civilians, prevented them from owning gold for a time, gave the president extraordinary powers, etc.
You need to read a REAL history book, my friend, and get this brainwashing out of your head. Global government is a bad idea all the way around. I want people to love each other and coexist as much as the next guy, I want to trade with other nations and teach them to help themselves, not just give them a andout with an ultimatum that only further erodes their ability to stand on their own and strips them of their natural resources.
"Nationalism" is NOT the reason we're in the empire building mode! It's just the opposite! The erosion of nationalism - the kind that finds its basis in the Constitution - is the reason these evil men are able to get away with what they're doing and will continue o do so until we stand up against them and GET EDUCATED!
Submitted by Monty_Python (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:54:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
OH NOES ROCKAFELLA TEH NWO OIL COMPANYS AN TEH ILOOMINARTEE!!
We get it, ETS. We really do.
We just don't care enough. Score one point for Fox News / CNN breading apathy, I guess.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is childish and ridiculous analysis. Seriously - try harder
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:16:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
where is my book nigga?
below?
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:12:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll give ya a plus two, but you know my feelings...
An Illumanti run New World Order would be the only TRUE and VALID way for humanity to evolve.
Such primitive concepts as "nationalism" and "patriotism" NEED to be ebolished to achieve gobal unity.
I believe in this. I BELIEVE we need a world authority to see past such feeble things as race, religion and sex.
I fully support the NWO concept, but I doubt we'll ever see it come to pass...
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:10:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you know why.
Submitted by Harbinger (user info) at 2007-05-30 19:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
priminent
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:57:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
protesting republicans in texas is illegal. or at least fatal.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:55:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In other Ron Paul news,
an Austin, TX fundraiser doubles in size after the debates, and not a SINGLE PROTESTOR shows up to speak against him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86OhirWqKGc
Submitted by IntangibleHands (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:51:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ruined by shitty music playing in the background.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:47:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In Ron Paul news...
May 29, 2007
Congressman Ron Paul is the most demanded GOP presidential candidate on Eventful.com and the third most demanded candidate overall, trailing only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
CNN reports that Ron Paul is, so far, the only presidential candidate to schedule a campaign stop based on eventful.com demands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZL6pVRb_YA
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:33:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This isn't old news. He was just confronted, like, yesterday.
Here is the Giuliani confrontation: http://www.wearechange.org/2007/05/truth-squad-confronts-giuliani-denies.html
There is a rebuttal video at the bottom of that page showing the interview where he said that he, indeed, did know about the imminent collapse of the buildings. It's also interesting to note that he mentioned that this 'knowledge' was based on "how other buildings had collapsed over a 7, 8, 9, 10 hour period".
What I want to know is...what other buildings is he alluding to here? Since 9/11 had no precedent for how buildings would behave under such conditions, what other buildings could he possibly be talking about?
I think Mr. Giuliani has some more questions to answer. Unfortunately, he seems to want to get out of situations where he has to answer them in a hurry.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:27:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
News to me.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:23:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
old news...VERY OLD NEWS.
Do you know when I first learned about this conspiracy? 1980.
NINETEEN FUCKING-EIGHTY...THAT WAS TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-05-30 18:20:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You have GOT to be fucking kidding here...