G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island," states that the Council of Foreign Relations(CFR) is the "true government" of the United States.
Two questions: "Who" makes up the Council of Foreign Relations? And, "why" would Griffin refer to them as the "true government" of America?
The "who" might be better described as the "who's who." Members include a lot of internationally famous people. Bill and Hillary Clinton, David Rockefeller, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Robert Rubin, Faceed Zhakeria, Angelina Jolie and Madeline Albright are all on the roster. Overall there are about 4500 citizens of the world who hold membership.
The next question amounts to "why" is this significant? Inception of the Federal Reserve is the topic of Griffin's book. It began with a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The goal was to gain control of the world's money supply. The interests represented in that posh resort spawned what later amounted to eight banking cartels. They succeeeded.
For the past 100 years, these "interests" have mastered the art of making money from conflict. Beginning with War World One, they gained huge profits by supplying and outfitting both sides. When they ran out of enemies, they created them. "Monsters" in history such as Hitler and Stalin would never have existed without these cartels.
Which side was "right" and which side was "wrong" was never a question. The only concern was "how much money can be made" from the conflict.
They made money from crisis' as well. The great depression and the 2008 banking meltdown sent huge sums to the cartels.
Which brings us to the looming conflict in today's troubled America. If the policies of the Obama Administration are opposed by so much of the nation, "what if" nullification, the topic of last week's post, came to fruition?
Most say that it wouldn't. Naysayers point out, "secession was decided with the Civil War." But, we're not talking about secession. Nullification originally came up in 1828. There were no banking cartels. There was no Federal Reserve. Few were looking at nullification from the standpoint of "how much money" could be made from it!
This isn't the case today!
It is unlikely that nullification would spawn a second civil war. Americans would not begin shooting at each other over the concept. Fighting for principles and ideologies may sound noble. But today's nation of 315 million is slightly different from the America of 31 million in 1861.
It is highly realistic to assume that a mass population migration would result from nullification. It might start with preference for Obamacare. But Federal laws, not included in the Constitution would be evaluated state-to-state.
Just imagine! Ohio decided to keep Dodd-Frank. Kentucky decided not to. Ohio based banks might respond by moving headquarters to the south side of the the Ohio River. The Buckeye state could keep Dodd-Frank and, as conservatives would predict, "watch banking jobs leave the state." The alternative would be to join Kentucky and nullify it. Right? Proponents of Dodd-Frank would predict the contrary!
Right to Work stands as evidence that conservatives know what they are tolking about. Texas Governor, Rick Perry was accused of "job poaching" by noted conservative, Glenn Beck. But, his appeal to companies seeking a more business friendly landscape has resulted in their moving from heavily unionized states such as California, to Texas.
To implement or nullify Obamacare would have a more far reaching impact! There is no doubt that Americans seeking relief from the law, would flock to those states that nullified it. Conversely, those gaining from Obamacare, would attempt to migrate to states that implemented it.
Relocation is always accompanied by real estate activity. Much is spent on homes, building materials, furniture and, of course, the relocation itself. For banks, this amounts to a need for credit. This translates to money!
But wait! Wouldn't this kind of migration impose hardships on states that conformed to Dodd-Frank and offered Obamacare? According to their supporters, these two Obama initiatives are wonderful. What they can't understand is "why all Americans can't see the light?"
What about the carbon tax? What about alternative energy? What about drilling and energy exploration. What about all of this land owned by the federal government, for that matter?
What about Agenda 21, AKA "Sustainability?" When states begin nullifying federal law, implementing this grand illusion becomes as doable as "putting jelly on the wall with thumb tacks!" So what happened to goal of a "one world government?"
It's still there. Nullification represents a highly profitable detour. In fact, this "detour" could actually be a more effective method of reaching the overall goal.
According to former Idaho Congressmen, Curtis Bowers, the long range globalist objective is to reduce the world's population from seven billion to one billion. This would be accomplished by implementing birth control in developing nations, rationing of healthcare and limiting the world food supplies.
Americans looking for "free stuff" would flock to these more liberal American states. Healthcare, housing, food, transportation and family planning would be available. Then, as supplies became more limited, food stamps would become ration cards, housing would be similar to Stalin era, Soviet apartments, healthcare, including medicine would be rationed or unavailable and children unaffordable.
Without question, nullification would open a barrel of eels! On one hand, the nation would be transformed into the America that our founders envisioned. Conversely, it would create a means of self destruction for part of the country. The surprising factor is that this "true government" of the United States might not have a problem with it.
We always hear the prediction, "they would never let it happen!" But, in this case "they" would make big bucks if it did happen. That is precisely why we cannot dismiss nullification. Over the past 100 years, if there was a loose dollar bill to be had, they were interested.
These globalist banking cartels collectively hold a net worth of roughly 100 trillion dollars. They control artists, polticians and media; literally everything and everyone. The CFR is their front. History has proven repeatedly that "if there is money to be made from anything, whether it be war, crisis or ideology, they're in!
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Nullification- Could it Actually Happen?
There is a segment of America that believes that it could!
Thomas Jefferson believed in it's constitutionality. In a famous 1798 Kentucky case he stated, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers...a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."
Thirty years later, the question of nullification arose in South Carolina. The question was, "could a state nullify a protective tariff?" This was 1828. There was a heated debate, harsh words, threat of war and ultimately, a compromise.
The issue of states rights continued to fester and finally exploded with the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. A bloody war resulted. More Americans were killed in the four years that followed than in all subsequent wars combined!
Many Americans concluded the issue settled, once and for all. Others never did.
Revisionist historians describe the American Civil War as a war to end slavery in America. True, the Emancipation Proclamation was passed as a war measure in 1863. But the real root of the conflict can be traced to states rights and 10th amendment perception. Almost everyone who supported the Confederacy continued to believe that state law was sovereign to federal law. Much of America maintains this standard even today.
Embedded deep in the Southern psyche is the conviction that the South never really lost; that they were merely starved into submission. Children throughout the old Confederacy were told by their parents and grandparents that the "South would rise again." Economic ruin accompanied by a harsh reconstruction did little to vanquish these wistful aspirations.
One hundred years passed. It was now the 1960's and the forced implementation of Brown versus the Board of Education was in motion. The "second reconstruction" was upon America. This time, however, it went north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Everyone was told that that the measure was "in our best interest." Never mind the fact that an overwhelming majority of all races opposed it! In the end, it weakened educational standards in America, while forcing states to spend money that could have been used for education grants, better pay for teachers and better equipment.
Today Brown versus the Board of Education has been overturned. True, some stubborn school districts,dominated by left wing ideologues continue to resist. The fact remains that nullification could have allowed states to come up with their own plan.
Obamacare is another mistake in the pre-natal stages. Like Brown, those who have supported it so vigorously had good intentions. The problem with Obamacare, like Brown is that both initiatives, are at odds with the original America our framers created.
At first glance, Obamacare and Brown versus the Board of Education would bear little if any resemblance. Brown was a 1954 Supreme Court ruling. Obamacare was partisan legislation that made it through the House and Senate,later signed by the President. The connection comes from the idea that the federal government can impose it's will on individual states, forcing their people or governments to spend their money for a project that they may oppose.
These are examples of "the general government assuming undelegated power" that Jefferson referenced when he proposed "Nullification" as the "rightful remedy."
True, the concept of Nullification goes against the grain of modern American thinking. Proponents are typically pigeonholed as "nut cases, racists, right wing fringe elements" or worse! This is the traditional leftist methodology; "to label those in opposition to their way, out-of-step with the times, imbeciles, racists or morons."
This notwithstanding, there are a lot of Americans, including millions north of the Mason-Dixon line, who think that maybe the South got it right! Perhaps Nullification is the best way to deal with a Federal government grown too large and too intrusive!
Could Nullification actually happen? Don't look now, but it IS happening. We are seeing Nullification legislation in a number of states. Chief Justice, John Roberts was scorned by the right when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Obamacare. But the opinion differed from the original legislation in one key way: The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from states as a punitive measure.
Would Barack Obama stand passively aside and allow Texas, Louisiana, Missouri or Idaho to "opt out" of his signature accomplishment. His markedly definant nature coupled with his confrontational demeanor would suggest not. But that may be the wrong question!
This is not 1861. Nor do we live in the age of innocence. We have television. We have cable. We have the internet. Most Americans in Connecticut won't care if Alabama residents choose not to participate in Obamacare! They certainly are not going to take up arms over such a question!
What about Homeland Security or the Military? Somehow, I don't think so. There is something alien about Americans shooting Americans because they preferred not to participate in a program that has so divided the country. More succinctly, those saying "no" to Obamacare would be exercising their constitutional right. Which brings us to the "eye of the storm!"
The United States Military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. If Nullification is indeed legal under the constitution as Jefferson said that it was, then the Military cannot act.
Homeland Security is another question. Is this agency considered bound under the same laws as the Military?
Then there are the individual state militias. Assuming the regular armed forces stayed out of it, and Homeland Security was ordered by the Administration to "engage," would not they be a factor? They could be. But, a more likely scenario would amount to those in Homeland Security choosing resignation over engagement.
There have even been suggestions that Obama might seek help from the United Nations if it ever came to an outright rebellion. I wouldn't bank on it! For two simple reasons: (1) More than half of the nation opposes Obamacare and (2) There simply isn't the will in America to implement Obamacare on dissenting states by force.
Opponents of Nullification would be quick to remind that "it wouldn't end with Obamacare." Soon the states would be behaving like small countries and that would never do! Or would it? The founders were not imbeciles or morons! This nation was founded as a Republic. We are the United States of America, not the United American States! Our very motto, "E Pluribus Unum" could not have made it more clear:
"From the many, one."
Thomas Jefferson believed in it's constitutionality. In a famous 1798 Kentucky case he stated, "Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers...a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."
Thirty years later, the question of nullification arose in South Carolina. The question was, "could a state nullify a protective tariff?" This was 1828. There was a heated debate, harsh words, threat of war and ultimately, a compromise.
The issue of states rights continued to fester and finally exploded with the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. A bloody war resulted. More Americans were killed in the four years that followed than in all subsequent wars combined!
Many Americans concluded the issue settled, once and for all. Others never did.
Revisionist historians describe the American Civil War as a war to end slavery in America. True, the Emancipation Proclamation was passed as a war measure in 1863. But the real root of the conflict can be traced to states rights and 10th amendment perception. Almost everyone who supported the Confederacy continued to believe that state law was sovereign to federal law. Much of America maintains this standard even today.
Embedded deep in the Southern psyche is the conviction that the South never really lost; that they were merely starved into submission. Children throughout the old Confederacy were told by their parents and grandparents that the "South would rise again." Economic ruin accompanied by a harsh reconstruction did little to vanquish these wistful aspirations.
One hundred years passed. It was now the 1960's and the forced implementation of Brown versus the Board of Education was in motion. The "second reconstruction" was upon America. This time, however, it went north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Everyone was told that that the measure was "in our best interest." Never mind the fact that an overwhelming majority of all races opposed it! In the end, it weakened educational standards in America, while forcing states to spend money that could have been used for education grants, better pay for teachers and better equipment.
Today Brown versus the Board of Education has been overturned. True, some stubborn school districts,dominated by left wing ideologues continue to resist. The fact remains that nullification could have allowed states to come up with their own plan.
Obamacare is another mistake in the pre-natal stages. Like Brown, those who have supported it so vigorously had good intentions. The problem with Obamacare, like Brown is that both initiatives, are at odds with the original America our framers created.
At first glance, Obamacare and Brown versus the Board of Education would bear little if any resemblance. Brown was a 1954 Supreme Court ruling. Obamacare was partisan legislation that made it through the House and Senate,later signed by the President. The connection comes from the idea that the federal government can impose it's will on individual states, forcing their people or governments to spend their money for a project that they may oppose.
These are examples of "the general government assuming undelegated power" that Jefferson referenced when he proposed "Nullification" as the "rightful remedy."
True, the concept of Nullification goes against the grain of modern American thinking. Proponents are typically pigeonholed as "nut cases, racists, right wing fringe elements" or worse! This is the traditional leftist methodology; "to label those in opposition to their way, out-of-step with the times, imbeciles, racists or morons."
This notwithstanding, there are a lot of Americans, including millions north of the Mason-Dixon line, who think that maybe the South got it right! Perhaps Nullification is the best way to deal with a Federal government grown too large and too intrusive!
Could Nullification actually happen? Don't look now, but it IS happening. We are seeing Nullification legislation in a number of states. Chief Justice, John Roberts was scorned by the right when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Obamacare. But the opinion differed from the original legislation in one key way: The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from states as a punitive measure.
Would Barack Obama stand passively aside and allow Texas, Louisiana, Missouri or Idaho to "opt out" of his signature accomplishment. His markedly definant nature coupled with his confrontational demeanor would suggest not. But that may be the wrong question!
This is not 1861. Nor do we live in the age of innocence. We have television. We have cable. We have the internet. Most Americans in Connecticut won't care if Alabama residents choose not to participate in Obamacare! They certainly are not going to take up arms over such a question!
What about Homeland Security or the Military? Somehow, I don't think so. There is something alien about Americans shooting Americans because they preferred not to participate in a program that has so divided the country. More succinctly, those saying "no" to Obamacare would be exercising their constitutional right. Which brings us to the "eye of the storm!"
The United States Military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. If Nullification is indeed legal under the constitution as Jefferson said that it was, then the Military cannot act.
Homeland Security is another question. Is this agency considered bound under the same laws as the Military?
Then there are the individual state militias. Assuming the regular armed forces stayed out of it, and Homeland Security was ordered by the Administration to "engage," would not they be a factor? They could be. But, a more likely scenario would amount to those in Homeland Security choosing resignation over engagement.
There have even been suggestions that Obama might seek help from the United Nations if it ever came to an outright rebellion. I wouldn't bank on it! For two simple reasons: (1) More than half of the nation opposes Obamacare and (2) There simply isn't the will in America to implement Obamacare on dissenting states by force.
Opponents of Nullification would be quick to remind that "it wouldn't end with Obamacare." Soon the states would be behaving like small countries and that would never do! Or would it? The founders were not imbeciles or morons! This nation was founded as a Republic. We are the United States of America, not the United American States! Our very motto, "E Pluribus Unum" could not have made it more clear:
"From the many, one."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)